Skip to main content

Full text of "Luther"

See other formats 


LUTHER 


Nihil  Obstat 

C.  Schut,  D.D., 

Censor  Deputatus 

Imprimatur 

Edm.  Can.  Surmokt, 

Vic.  Gen. 
Westmonasterii,  die  %%  Januarii,  1914- 


LUTHER 


BY 


HARTMANN    GRISAR,    S.J. 

PROFESSOR    AT    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    INNSBRUCK 


AUTHORISED    TRANSLATION    FROM    THE    GERMAN    BY 

E.  M.  LAMOND 

EDITED    BY 

LUIGI   CAPPADELTA 


Volume  III 


LONDON 
KEGAN  PAUL,  TRENCH,  TRUBNER  &  CO.,  Ltd. 

BROADWAY   HOUSE,    68-74   CARTER   LANE,   E.C. 

I914 


A   FEW    PRESS    OPINIONS   OF 
VOLUME    I 

M  His  most  elaborate  and  systematic  biography  ...  is  not 
merely  a  book  to  be  reckoned  with  ;  it  is  one  with  which  we  cannot 
dispense,  if  only  for  its  minute  examination  of  Luther's  theological 
writings." — The  Athenaeum. 

"There  is  no  room  for  any  sort  of  question  as  to  the  welcome 
ready  among  English-speaking  Roman  Catholics  for  this  admirably 
made  translation  of  the  first  volume  of  the  German  monograph 
by  Professor  Grisar  on  the  protagonist  of  the  Reformation  in 
Europe.  .  .  .  The  book  is  so  studiously  scientific,  so  careful  to 
base  its  teaching  upon  documents,  and  so  determined  to  eschew 
controversies  that  are  only  theological,  that  it  cannot  but  deeply 
interest  Protestant  readers." — The  Scotsman. 

"Father  Grisar  has  gained  a  high  reputation  in  this  country 
through  the  translation  of  his  monumental  work  on  the  History  of 
Rome  and  the  Popes  in  the  Middle  Ages,  and  this  first  instalment 
of  his  life  of  Luther  bears  fresh  witness  to  his  unwearied  industry, 
wide  learning,  and  scrupulous  anxiety  to  be  impartial  in  his  judg- 
ments as  well  as  absolutely  accurate  in  matters  of  fact." — Glasgow 
Herald. 

"  It  is  impossible  to  understand  the  Reformation  without  under- 
standing the  life  and  character  of  the  great  German.  The  man 
and  the  work  are  so  indissolubly  united  that  we  cannot  have  right 
judgments  about  either  without  considering  the  other.  It  is  one 
of  Father  Grisar's  many  merits  that  he  does  not  forget  for  a  single 
moment  the  fundamental  importance  of  this  connection.  The  man 
and  his  work  come  before  us  in  these  illuminating  pages,  not  as 
more  or  less  harmonious  elements,  but  as  a  unity,  and  we  cannot 
analyse  either  without  constant  reference  to  the  other.0 — Irish 
Times. 

"Professor  Grisar  is  hard  on  Luther.  Perhaps  no  Roman 
Catholic  can  help  it.  But  it  is  significant  that  he  is  hard  on  the 
anti-Lutherans  also.  .  .  .  He  shows  us,  indeed,  though  not  de- 
liberately, that  some  reformation  of  religion  was  both  imperative 
and  inevitable.  .  .  .  But  he  is  far  from  being  overwhelmed  with 
prejudice.  He  really  investigates,  uses  good  authorities,  and 
gives  reasons  for  his  judgments." — The  Expository  Times. 

"  This  Life  of  Luther  is  bound  to  become  standard  ...  a  model 
of  every  literary,  critical,  and  scholarly  virtue." — The  Month. 

"  The  most  important  book  on  Luther  that  has  appeared  since 
Denifle's  epoch-making  'Luther  und  Luthertum.'  ...  It  is  an 
ordered  biography,  .  .  .  and  is  therefore  very  probably  destined 
to  a  wider  general  usefulness  as  a  Catholic  authority." — The  Jrish 
Rosary. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  XV.     ORGANISATION  AND  PUBLIC  POSITION 

OF    THE    NEW    CHURCH        ....   pages  3-108 

1.  Luther's    Religious    Situation.      Was    his    Reaction    a 

Break  with  Radicalism  ? 

The  New  Church,  with  its  binding  formularies  of  faith  and 
its  constituted  authorities,  contrasted  with  Luther's  earlier 
demands  for  freedom  from  all  outward  bonds.  The  change 
which  occurred  in  his  mind  in  1522.  What  prompted  the 
reaction  ?  Did  Luther,  prior  to  1522,  ever  cherish  the  idea  of  a 
"  religion  minus  dogma  "  ?  His  clear  design  from  the  begin- 
ning to  preserve  all  the  Christian  elements  deemed  by  him 
essential.  His  assertion  of  the  freedom  of  the  Christian  ; 
the  negations  it  logically  involved  pass  unperceived.  Greater 
stress  laid  on  the  positive  elements  after  1522  ;  the  subjective 
counter-current.  Ecclesiastical  anarchy.  Modern  Protes- 
tants more  willing  than  was  Luther  to  push  his  principles 
to  their  legitimate  consequences.  Conclusion  :  The  reaction 
which  set  in  in  1522  implied  no  real  change  of  view.  How 
Luther  contrived  to  conceal  from  himself  and  from  others  the 
incompatibility  of  his  leanings      ....  pages  3-21 

2.  From  the  Congregational  to  the  State  Church.     Secu- 

larisations. 

Previous  to  espousing  the  idea  of  the  Congregational  Church 
Luther  invites  the  secular  authorities  to  interfere  ;  his  "  An 
den  christlichen  Adel  "  ;  his  hopes  shattered  ;  Luther's 
new  ideal :  the  Evangel  not  intended  for  all ;  the  assembly 
of  true  Christians  ;  the  Wittenberg  congregation  and  the 
model  one  established  at  Leisnig.  The  Congregational  Church 
proving  impracticable,  Luther  advocates  a  popular  Church  ; 
its  evolution  into  the  State  Church  as  it  afterwards  obtained 
in  Protestant  Germany.  Secularisation  of  church  property 
in  the  Saxon  Electorate.  Luther's  view  as  to  the  use  to  which 
church  property  should  bo  put  by  the  rulers  ;  he  complains  of 
princely  avarice.  Secularisation  of  the  marriage-courts  ; 
matrimonial  cases  dealt  with  by  secular  lawyers  ;  Luther's 
antipathy  for  lawyers,  how  accounted  for         .  .      pages  21-43 

3.  The  Question  of  the  Religious  War  ;   Luther's  Vacilla- 

ting Attitude.     The  League  of  Schmalkalden,  1531. 

Luther  casts  all  reserve  to  the  winds  ;  his  resolve  to  pro- 
ceed regardless  of  the  consequences.    His  earlier  opposition  to 


vi  CONTENTS 

armed  resistance  ;  his  memoranda  on  the  subject  clearly 
evince  his  hesitation.  His  change  of  view  in  1530  ;  reasons 
why  he  veered  round  ;  the  change  kept  secret ;  difficulties 
with  the  Nurembergers  ;  a  tell-tale  memorandum  published 
by  Cochlaeus.  The  League  of  Schmalkalden  ;  Luther's  hopes 
and  fears  ;  a  new  memorandum.  Luther's  misgivings  regard- 
ing Philip  of  Hesse's  invasion  of  Wurtemberg  ;  the  expedition 
turning  out  successful  is  blessed  by  Luther.  The  religious 
war  in  Luther's  private  conversations  in  later  years.  Later 
memoranda.  A  question  from  Brandenburg.  Later  attempts 
to  deny  the  authenticity  of  the  document  signed  by  Luther 
in  1530 pages  43-76 


4.  The  Turks  Without  and  the  Turks  [Papists]  Within  the 

Empire. 

The  danger  looming  in  the  East.  Luther's  earlier  pro- 
nouncements (previous  to  1524)  against  any  military 
measures  being  taken  to  prevent  the  Turkish  inroads  ; 
attitude  of  the  preachers  ;  imminent  danger  of  the  Empire 
after  the  battle  of  Mohacz  ;  Luther's  "  Vom  Kriege  widder 
die  Tiircken  "  registers  a  change  of  front ;  his  "  Heer-Predigt 
widder  den  Tiircken  "  and  the  approval  it  conveys  of  warlike 
measures  against  the  invader  ;  he  robs  his  call  to  arms  of 
most  of  its  force  by  insisting  on  his  pet  ideas  ;  his  later  sayings 
on  the  subject ;   the  Turk  not  so  dangerous  a  foe  as  Popery. 

pages  76-93 

5.  Luther's  Nationalism  and  Patriotism. 

Luther's  sayings  about  the  virtues  and  vices  of  his  own 
countrymen  ;  his  teaching  sunders  the  Empire  and  under- 
mines the  Imperial  authority  ;  his  advocacy  of  resistance  ; 
the  "  Prophet  of  the  Germans  "  ;  discouragement  of  trade 
and  science  ;  Dollinger  on  Luther  as  the  typical  German  ; 
the  power  of  the  strong  man  gifted  with  a  facile  tongue 

pages  93-108 


CHAPTER  XVI.     THE  DIVINE  MISSION  AND  ITS  MANI- 
FESTATIONS            pages  109-168 

1.  Growth  of  Luther's  Idea  of  his  Divine  Mission. 

His  conviction  of  his  special  call  and  enlightenment ;  his 
determination  to  brook  no  doubt  ;  all  his  actions  controlled 
from  on  high  ;  finds  a  confirmation  of  his  opinion  in  the  extent 
of  his  success  and  in  his  deliverance  from  his  enemies  ;  his 
untiring  labours  and  disregard  for  personal  advancement  ; 
the  problem  presented  by  the  union  in  him  of  the  fanatic 
mystic  with  the  homely,  cheerful  man  enjoying  to  the  full 
the  good  things  that  come  his  way  ;  his  superstitions  ;  his 
"  temptations  "  promote  his  progress  in  wisdom.  His  con- 
sciousness of  his  Mission  intensified  at  critical  junctures,  for 
instance,  during  his  stay  at  the  Wartburg  ;  his  letter  to 
Staupitz  in  1522  ;  his  statement  :  It  is  God's  Word.  Let 
what  cannot  stand  fall         .....     pages  108-128 


CONTENTS  vii 

2.  His  Mission  Alleged  against  the  Papists. 

How  Luther  describes  the  Pope  and  his  Court ;  his  call  to 
reform  Catholics  generally  ;  his  caricature  of  Erasmus  ;  how 
later  Protestants  have  taken  Luther's  claims.  Luther's 
apocalyptic  dreams  ;  his  exegesis  of  Daniel  viii.  ;  the  Papal 
Antichrist  :  A  system  rather  than  a  man  ;  Luther's  work  on 
Chronology.  The  Monk- Calf  as  a  Divine  sign  of  the  abomina- 
tion of  Popery  and  monasticism.  Luther's  "  Amen  "  to 
Melanchthon's  Pope- Ass     .....      pages  128-153 

3.  Proofs  of  the  Divine  Mission.    Miracles  and  Prophecies. 

Luther  on  the  proofs  required  to  establish  an  extraordinary 
mission.  The  distinction  between  ordinary  and  extraordinary 
calls.  His  appeal  to  the  rapid  diffusion  of  his  doctrine  ;  the 
real  explanation  of  this  spread  not  far  to  seek.  His  appeal  to 
his  doctorate,  to  his  appointment  by  authority,  and,  finally, 
to  the  "  Word  of  Truth  "  which  was  the  burden  of  his 
preaching.  Luther's  account  of  the  "  miracle  "  of  Floren- 
tina's  escape  from  her  convent.  His  unwillingness  to  ask  for 
the  grace  of  working  miracles  ;  his  demand  that  the  fanatics 
should  work  miracles  to  substantiate  their  claims  ;  his  allu- 
sions to  the  power  of  his  own  prayer  in  restoring  the  sick  to 
health.  The  gift  of  prophecy ;  Luther  loath  to  predict 
anything  "  lest  it  should  come  true."  His  own  so-called 
predictions.  Earlier  predictions  of  mystics  and  astrologers 
taken  by  him  as  referring  to  himself      .  .  .     pages  153-168 

CHAPTER  XVII.     GLIMPSES  OF  A  REFORMER'S  MORALS 

pages  169-318 

1.  Luther's  Vocation  :    His  Standard  of  Life. 

What  may  rightly  be  looked  for  in  a  reformer  of  the 
Church.  Luther's  contemporaries  on  his  shortcomings  : 
Joh.  Findling,  Erasmus,  and  Ferreri.  The  remedy 
proposed  by  Luther  to  drive  away  depression,  viz.  self- 
indulgence         .......     pages  169-180 

2.  Some  of  Luther's  Practical  Principles  of  Life. 

His  contradictory  views  on  sin,  and  on  penance  ;  his  ideas 
suited  to  meet  his  own  case  and  to  relieve  his  own  conscience. 
His  attitude  towards  human  endeavour ;  predestination 
and  unfreedom  ;  the  devil's  dominion  ;  the  failings  of  the 
Saints.  "  Be  a  sinner  and  sin  boldly,  but  believe  more  boldly 
still."      Protestant  strictures  on  Luther's  doctrine  of  sin 

pages  180-199 

3.  Luther's  Admissions  Concerning  his  own  Practice  and 

Virtue. 

Luther  on  the  weakness  of  his  own  faith,  his  doubts,  his 
utter  misery,  and  the  shortcomings  of  his  life.  His  attitude 
towards  prayer ;  prayer  mingled  with  imprecation  ;  his 
threatened  prayer  against  dishonest  brewers.  Christian  joy 
and  peace.  Preparation  for  the  sacraments.  Mortification 
and  self-conquest.  Mediocrity  as  the  aim  of  ethics.  Lack  of 
zeal  for  the  salvation  of  all  men  ;  disregard  for  missionary 
work.    Luther  in  his  home ;  minor  disappointments  pages  200-217 


viii  CONTENTS 

4.  The  Table-Talk  and  the  First  Notes  of  the  same. 

Luther's  evening  conversations  at  Wittenberg  recorded 
by  his  friends  ;  utility  of  the  notes  they  left  ;  Walch,  Kroker 
and  others  on  the  authority  of  these  notes.  Excerpts  from 
the  Table-Talk  :  The  pith  of  the  new  religion,  viz.  confidence 
in  Christ.  Catholic  practices  and  institutions  described  : 
The  Mass,  fasting,  confession,  the  religious  life.  Praises 
heaped  on  the  Table-Talk  by  Luther's  early  disciples.  Luther 
himself  responsible  for  the  foulness  of  the  language.  Pom- 
mer's  way  of  dealing  with  the  devil.  Filthy  references  to  the 
Pope  ;  unseemly  comparisons  ;  "  adorabunt  nostra  stercoral 
Such  language  by  no  means  confined  to  the  Table-Talk  ;  a 
few  quotations  from  Luther's  "  Wider  das  Bapstum  zu  Rom." 
An  excuse  alleged,  viz.  that  such  language  was  then  quite 
usual.  Sir  Thomas  More's  protest.  A  modern  defender  of 
Luther.     The  real  explanation  of  Luther's  unrestraint 

pages  217-241 

5.  On  Marriage  and  Sexuality. 

On  the  imperative  necessity  of  marriage  ;  the  irresistibility 
of  the  natural  impulse  ;  the  world  full  of  adulterers  ?  The 
"  miracle  "  of  voluntary  and  chaste  celibacy.  Luther's 
animus  against  Popish  celibacy.  His  loosening  of  the 
marriage-bond.  Cases  in  which  marriage  is  annulled. 
Meaning  of  the  words  "  If  the  wife  refuse,  then  let  the  maid 
come."  A  modern  secularist's  appeal  to  Luther's  principles. 
Polygamy.  Luther,  after  some  hesitation,  comes  to  tolerate 
polygamy,  but  makes  it  a  matter  of  the  forum  internum.  The 
opinions  of  Catholic  theologians.  "  Secret  marriages  "  and  ' 
concubinage  ;  what  those  have  to  do  who  are  forbidden  by 
law  to  contract  marriage.  Denial  of  the  sacramental  charac- 
ter of  matrimony.  Luther's  tone  in  speaking  of  things 
sexual  ;  a  letter  to  Spalatin  ;  regret  expressed  for  offensive 
manner  of  speech  ;  odious  comparisons  contained  in  his 
"  Vom  Schem  Hamphoras  "  (against  the  Jews)  and  "  Wider 
Hans  Worst  "  (against  the  Catholics)  ;  improper  anecdotes  ; 
Luther,  like  Abraham,  "  the  father  of  a  great  people,"  viz.  of 
the  children  of  all  the  monks  and  nuns  who  discarded  their 
vows        ........     pages  241-273 

6.  Contemporary  Complaints.     Later  False  Reports. 

Simon  Lemnius  ;  fanatics  and  Anabaptists  ;  Catholics  : 
Hieronymus  Dungersheim,  Duke  George,  Ambrosius 
Catharinus,  Hoyer  of  Mansfeld  ;  Protestants  :  Melanchthon, 
Leo  Judae,  Zwingli,  Bullinger,  Joh.  Agricola.  How  far  the 
complaints  were  grounded.  Apocryphal  legends  to  Luther's 
discredit  :  Had  Luther  three  children  of  his  own  apart  from 
those  born  to  him  by  Bora  ?  His  jesting  letters  to  his  wife  not 
to  be  taken  seriously.  Did  he  indulge  in  the  "  worst  orgies  " 
with  the  escaped  nuns  in  the  Black  Monastery  of  Witten- 
berg ?  The  passages  "  which  will  not  bear  repetition." 
Whether  Luther  as  a  young  monk  declared  he  would  bring 
things  to  such  a  pass  as  to  be  able  to  marry  a  girl  ;  Wolfgang 
Agricola's  authority  for  this  statement  and  the  information 
he  gives  concerning  Spalatin.  Luther's  stay  as  a  boy  in 
Cotta's  house  at  Eisenach  no  ground  for  a  charge  of  im- 
morality.   Did  Luther  describe  the  lot  of  the  hog  as  the  most 


CONTENTS  ix 

enviable  goal  of  happiness  ?  Did  he  allow  the  validity  of 
marriage  between  brother  and  sister  ?  Whether  he  counselled 
people  to  pray  for  many  wives  and  few  children  ;  variants 
of  an  ancient  rhyme.  Did  he  include  wives  in  the  "  daily 
bread  "  for  which  we  pray  in  the  Our  Father  ?  Was  he  the 
inventor  of  the  proverb  :  "  Who  loves  not  woman,  wine  and 
song,  remains  a  fool  his  whole  life  long  "  ?  .  .      pages  273-294 

7.  The  "  Good  Drink." 

Need  of  examining  critically  the  charges  made  against 
Luther  ;  the  number  of  his  literary  productions  scarcely 
compatible  with  his  having  been  an  habitual  drunkard. 
Testimonies  of  Musculus,  the  "  Dicta  Melanchthoniana," 
Ickelsamer,  Lemnius,  etc.  Opinions  of  Catholics  :  Cath- 
arinus,  Hoyer  of  Mansfeld,  Joh.  Landau  and  others.  Luther's  - 
own  statements  about  his  "Good  Drink  "  ;  his  reasons  for 
such  indulgence ;  his  distinction  between  drinking  and  drunk- 
enness ;  his  reprobation  of  habitual  drunkenness.  Melanch- 
thon  and  Mathesius,  two  witnesses  to  Luther's  temperance. 
From  the  cellar  and  the  tap-room  ;  gifts  in  kind  made  to 
Luther  ;  his  calls  on  the  cellar  of  the  Wittenberg  council  ; 
the  signature  "  Doctor  plenus  "  appended  to  one  of  his  letters 
to  be  read  as  "  Doctor  Johannes  "  ;  the  "  old  wine  "  of  the 
Coburg  and  Luther's  indisposition  in  1530  ;  beer  versus 
wine        ........      pages  294-318 


CHAPTER  XVIII.  LUTHER  AND  MELANCHTHON 

pages  319-378 

1.  Melanchthon  in  the  Service  or  Lutheranism,  1518-30. 

What  Luther  owed  to  his  friend.  Their  earlier  relations  ; 
Luther's  unstinted  praise  ;  Melanchthon's  apprehensions  ; 
his  work  during  the  Visitation  in  1527  ;  is  horrified  by 
Luther's  language  to  Duke  George  and  saddened  by  the 
"  Protest  "  of  the  dissidents  at  Spires.  Melanchthon  at  the 
Diet  of  Augsburg,  1530.  The  "  Augsburg  Confession  "  and 
its  "  Apology  **  characteristic  of  the  writer  ;  his  admission 
regarding  the  use  he  had  made  of  the  name  of  St.  Augustine  ; 
his  letter  to  Cardinal  Campeggio  ;  some  contemporaries 
on  Melanchthon's  "  duplicity  "  ;  the  Gospel  proviso  ; 
Melanchthon  judged  by  modern  historians  ;  Luther  consoles 
his  friend.     The  "  Erasmian  "  intermediary  .      pages  319-346 

2.  Disagreements  and  Accord   between  Luther  and   Me- 

lanchthon. 

Melanchthon  first  accepts  the  whole  of  Luther's  doctrine, 
but  afterwards  deviates  from  it  even  in  essentials  ;  his 
antipathy  to  the  denial  of  freedom  and  to  absolute  pre- 
destination to  hell,  to  faith  alone  and  to  the  denial  of  the 
value  of  works.  Penance  and  the  motive  of  fear.  Differs 
from  Luther  on  the  question  of  the  Supper  and  gradually 
approaches  the  Zwinglian  standpoint.  Points  of  accord  with 
Luther  ;  he  shares  Luther's  superstition  and  belief  in  the 
Papal  Antichrist ;  has  unjustly  been  accused  of  being  more 
tolerant  than  his  master  ;  his  ideal  a  pedagogic  one    pages  346-360 


x  CONTENTS 

3.  Melanchthon  at  the  Zenith  of  his  Career.  His  Mental 
Sufferings. 

His  interest  in  the  promotion  of  studies  ;  his  correspond- 
ence ;  his  intimacy  with  Luther  ;  his  disappointment ;  what 
he  disliked  in  Luther  ;  he  meets  with  little  sympathy  in 
Luther's  circle,  though  Luther's  personal  esteem  never  fails 
him  ;  the  rumour  that  he  was  disposed  to  return  to  the 
Catholic  fold  ;  his  willingness  to  find  congenial  employment 
away  from  Wittenberg  ;  his  tendency  to  leave  religious  affairs 
in  the  hands  of  the  State  .....     pages  360-378 

CHAPTER  XIX.  LUTHER'S  RELATIONS  WITH 
ZWINGLI,  CARLSTADT,  BUGENHAGEN  AND 
OTHERS pages  379-416 

1.  ZWINGLI  AND  THE  CONTROVERSY  ON  THE  SUPPER. 

Earlier  relationship  between  Zwingli  and  Luther  ;  their 
divergent  opinions  on  the  Eucharist ;  the  Marburg  Con- 
ference between  the  two  ;  the  power  behind  this  Conference  ; 
Luther  on  Zwingli's  untimely  end        .  .  .     pages  379-385 

2.  Carlstadt. 

Finding  Wittenberg  too  warm,  Carlstadt  removes  to 
Orlamunde  ;  his  meeting  with  Luther  in  the  Black  Bear  Inn 
at  Jena  ;  he  goes  to  Strasburg,  and  thence  to  Rothenburg  ;  he 
is  driven  by  want  to  accept  Luther's  conditions  ;  he  breaks 
his  promise,  escapes  to  Switzerland  and  receives  an  appoint- 
ment at  Basle.  What  Luther  says  of  him  in  the  Table-Talk 
and  in  his  "  Widder  die  hymelischen  Propheten  "  :  The 
defects  of  Carlstadt's  mission,  his  violent  behaviour,  his 
attachment  to  the  Decalogue,  his  wrong  interpretation  of  the 
Supper,  his  stress  on  the  inward  rather  than  on  the  outward 
Word,  his  unacquaintance  with  "  temptations  "    .     pages  385-400 

3.  JOHANN    AGRICOLA,    JACOB    SCHENK,    AND    JOHANN    EGRANUS. 

Luther  on  Agricola.  Schenk  and  the  question  of  the  Law  ; 
an  encounter  between  Schenk  and  Luther.  Egranus's  dis- 
satisfaction with  Luther;  Luther's  references  to  the  "brood 
of  Erasmus  "  ;  the  burden  of  Egranus's  complaints     pages  400-404 

4.  BUGENHAGEN,  JONAS  AND  OTHERS. 

Luther's  admiration  for  Amsdorf  and  Brenz.  Bugenhagen, 
a  legate  "  a  facie  et  a  corde  "  ;  his  antecedents  ;  becomes 
pastor  of  Wittenberg ;  his  missionary  labours ;  his  in- 
timacy with  Luther  ;  his  letters  from  Denmark ;  a  female 
demoniac.  Friendship  between  Luther  and  Jonas  as  attested 
by  the  Table-Talk  ;   chief  events  of  Jonas's  life    .     pages  404-416 

CHAPTER    XX.     ATTEMPTS    AT    UNION    IN    VIEW    OF 

THE    PROPOSED    COUNCIL        .  .  .     pages  417-449 

1.  Zurich,  Munster,  the  Wittenberg  Concord,   1536. 

The  Swiss  theologians  on  Luther  and  his  doctrine.  The 
Anabaptists  and  Luther's  opinion  of  their  doings  at  Munster. 


CONTENTS  xi 

Pope  Paul  III.  Efforts  of  the  Protestants  to  reach  an 
understanding  among  themselves ;  Martin  Bucer ;  the 
Wittenberg  Concord  ;  attempts  to  secure  the  adhesion  of  the 
Swiss  ;  Luther  pockets  his  scruples  ;  collapse  of  the  negotia- 
tions ;  Luther's  "  Kurtz  Bekentnis  "  .  .  .      pages  417-424 

2.  Efforts  in  View  of  a  Council.    Vergerio  visits  Luther. 

Pope  Paul  III.  determines  to  hold  a  Council  at  Mantua  in 
1537.  Vergerio  dispatched  by  the  Pope  to  Germany  to 
smooth  the  way  ;  the  Legate  invites  Luther  to  breakfast 
with  him  at  the  Castle  of  Wittenberg  ;  his  description  of  his 
guest ;   his  own  subsequent  apostasy  .  .  .      pages  424-430 

3.  The  Schmalkalden  Assembly  of  1537.    Luther's  Illness. 

The  Schmalkalden  League.  The  league  of  the  Catholic 
Princes.  Luther's  "  Artickel  "  for  the  Schmalkalden  con- 
vention. Melanchthon's  endeavour  to  arrange  matters. 
Luther's  willingness  to  promote  the  Council.  The  discussions 
at  Schmalkalden  ;  Melanchthon's  backhanded  proceedings. 
Luther,  prostrated  by  an  attack  of  stone,  desires  to  be  re- 
moved so  as  not  to  die  in  a  town  defiled  by  the  presence  of  a 
Papal  envoy.  His  parting  benediction  :  "  Deus  vos  impleat 
odio  Papce."  The  agreement  subsequently  reached  at 
Schmalkalden.  Luther  makes  his  "  First  Will  "  ;  his  re- 
covery ;  his  imprecatory  Paternoster  .  .      pages  430-438 

4.  Luther's  Spirit  in  MelanchtHon. 

Melanchthon's  sudden  change  of  attitude  whilst  at  Schmal- 
kalden ;  he  emulates  Luther ;  reason  of  the  change  ; 
Melanchthon's  preference  for  the  "  needle,"  Luther's  for  the 
"  hog-spear."  Melanchthon's  work  for  Luther  in  the  Anti- 
nomian  and  Osiander  controversies  ;  his  "  Confessio  Au- 
gustana  variata  "  tacitly  sanctioned  by  Luther  ;  Bucer  and 
Melanchthon  and  the  "  Cologne  Book  of  Reform  "  ;  Bucer  is 
violently  taken  to  task  by  Luther,  but  Melanchthon  is  spared. 
The  last  joint  work  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  viz.  the 
"  Wittenberg  Reformation  "  (1545)     .  .  .     pages  438-449 


VOL.   Ill 
THE   REFORMER   (I) 


III.— B 


LUTHEE 


CHAPTER    XV 

ORGANISATION   AND    PUBLIC    POSITION    OF   THE    NEW   CHURCH 

1.    Luther's  Religious  Situation.     Was  his  Reaction  a  Break 

with  Radicalism? 

From  the  date  of  the  presentation  of  the  "  Confession  "  at 
the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  Lutheranism  began  to  take  its  place 
as  a  new  form  of  religious  belief. 

Before  this  it  had  ostensibly  been  merely  a  question  of 
reforming  the  universal  Church,  though,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  proposed  reform  involved  the  entire  reconstruction  of 
the  Church.  Now,  however,  Lutherans  admitted — at  least 
indirectly,  by  putting  forward  this  new  profession  of  faith — 
that  it  was  their  intention  to  constitute  themselves  into  a 
distinctive  body,  in  order  to  impart  a  permanent  character  to 
the  recent  innovations  in  belief  and  practice.  The  Protes- 
tants were  prepared  to  see  in  Germany  two  forms  of  faith 
existing  side  by  side,  unless  indeed  the  Catholic  Church 
should  finally  consent  to  accept  the  "  evangelical  "  Pro- 
fession of  Faith. 

It  is  true,  that,  in  thus  establishing  a  formula  of  faith 
which  should  be  binding  on  their  followers,  the  Lutherans 
were  taking  up  a  position  in  contradiction  with  the  principle 
of  private  judgment  in  matters  of  faith,  which,  in  the  begin- 
ning, they  had  loudly  advocated.  This  was,  however, 
neither  an  isolated  phenomenon,  nor,  considering  the 
circumstances,  at  all  difficult  to  understand.  The  principles 
which  Luther  had  championed  in  the  first  part  of  his  career, 
principles  of  which  the  trend  was  towards  the  complete 
emancipation  of  the  individual  from  outward  creeds  and 
laws,  he  had  over  and  again  since  his  first  encounters  with 
the  fanatics  and  Anabaptists  honoured  in  the  breach,  and, 
if  he  had  not  altogether  discarded  them,  he  had  at  least 
come  to  explain  them  very  differently. 

3 


4  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

Hence  a  certain  reaction  had  taken  place  in  the  mind  of 
the  originator  of  the  schism  upon  which  in  some  sense  the 
Confession  of  Augsburg  set  a  seal. 

The  extent  of  this  reaction  has  been  very  variously 
estimated.  In  modern  times  the  contrast  between  the 
earlier  and  later  Luther  has  been  so  strongly  emphasised 
that  we  even  hear  it  said  that,  in  the  first  period  of  his 
career,  what  he  stood  for  was  a  mere  "  religion  of  humanity," 
that  of  a  resolute  "  radical,"  whereas  in  the  second  he 
returned  to  something  more  positive.  Some  have  even 
ventured  to  speak  of  the  earlier  stage  of  Luther's  career,  until, 
say,  1522,  as  "  Lutheran,"  and  of  the  later  as  "  Protestant." 

In  order  to  appreciate  the  matter  historically  it  will  be 
necessary  for  us  to  take  a  survey  of  the  circumstances  as 
a  whole  which  led  to  the  change  in  Luther's  attitude,  and 
then  to  determine  the  effect  of  these  factors  by  a  com- 
parison between  his  earlier  and  later  life. 

Amongst  the  circumstances  which  influenced  Luther  one 
was  his  tardy  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  course  he  had 
first  started  on,  with  the  noisy  proclamation  of  freedom  of 
thought  and  action  in  the  sphere  of  religion,  could  lead  to  no 
other  goal  than  that  of  universal  anarchy  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  both  religion  and  morality.  The  Anabaptist  rising 
served  to  point  out  to  him  the  results  of  his  inflammatory 
discourses  in  favour  of  freedom.  He  was  determined  that 
his  work  should  not  degenerate  into  social  revolution,  for' 
one  reason  because  he  was  anxious  to  retain  the  good-will  of 
the  mighty,  above  all  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony.  When  the 
Peasant  rising,  thanks  to  the  ideas  he  had  himself  put  forth, 
began  to  grow  formidable  he  found  himself  compelled  to 
make  a  more  determined  stand  against  all  forms  of  radical- 
ism which  threatened  disintegration.  This  he  did  indeed 
more  particularly  in  the  political  domain,  though  his  changed 
attitude  here  naturally  reacted  also  on  his  conception  of 
matters  religious. 

He  treated  Andreas  Carlstadt  and  Thomas  Miinzer  as  foes, 
not  merely  because  they  were  turbulent  and  dangerous 
demagogues,  but  also  because  they  were  his  rivals  in  the 
leadership  of  the  movement.  The  "  Spirit,"  which  he  had 
formerly  represented  as  the  possession  of  all  who  opposed  to 
the  old  Church  their  evangelical  interpretation  of  Scripture, 
he  was  now  obliged  to  reserve  more  and  more  to  himself,  in 


CAUSES  OF  REACTION  5 

order  to  put  a  stop  to  the  destructive  effect  of  the  multi- 
plicity of  opinions.  Instead  of  the  "  inward  word  "  he  now 
insisted  more  and  more  on  the  "  outward  word,"  viz.  on 
the  Bible  preaching,  as  authorised  by  the  authorities,  i.e. 
according  to  his  own  interpretation.  The  mysticism,  which 
had  formerly  lent  a  false,  idealistic  glamour  to  his  advocacy 
of  freedom,  gradually  evaporated  as  years  went  by.  Having 
once  secured  a  large  following  it  was  no  longer  necessary  for 
him  to  excite  the  masses  by  playing  to  their  love  of  innova- 
tion. After  the  first  great  burst  of  applause  was  over  he 
became,  in  the  second  period  of  his  life,  rather  more  sober, 
the  urgent  task  of  establishing  order  in  his  party,  par- 
ticularly in  the  Saxon  parishes  which  adhered  to  his 
cause,  calling  for  prudent  and  energetic  action  on  his 
side. 

In  this  respect  the  Visitation  in  1527  played  a  great  part 
in  modifying  those  ideas  of  his  which  tended  to  mere  arbi- 
trariness and  revolution. 

Now  that  the  doctrines  of  the  preachers  had  been  made 
to  conform  more  and  more  to  the  Wittenberg  standard  ; 
now  that  the  appointment  of  pastors  had  been  taken  out  of 
the  hands  of  the  Congregations  and  left  to  the  ruler  of  the 
land,  it  was  only  natural  that  when  the  new  national 
Church  called  for  a  uniform  faith,  a  binding  confession  of 
faith,  such  as  that  of  Augsburg,  should  be  proclaimed, 
however  much  such  a  step,  such  a  "  constriction  and  oppres- 
sion "  of  freedom,  might  conflict  with  the  right  of  private 
judgment  displayed  at  the  outset  on  the  banner  of  the 
movement. 

Such  were,  broadly  stated,  the  causes  which  led  to  the 
remarkable  change  in  Luther's  attitude. 

On  the  other  hand,  those  who  opine  that  his  ardour  had 
been  moderated  by  his  stay  at  the  Wartburg  seem  to  be 
completely  in  the  wrong.  The  solitude  and  quiet  of  the 
Wartburg  neither  taught  Luther  moderation,  nor  were 
responsible  for  the  subsequent  reaction.  Quite  otherwise  ; 
at  the  Wartburg  he  firmly  believed  that  all  that  he  had 
paved  the  way  for  and  executed  was  mystically  confirmed 
from  above,  and  when,  after  receiving  his  "  spiritual 
baptism "  within  those  gloomy  walls,  he  wrote,  as  one 
inspired,  to  the  Elector  concerning  his  mission,  there  was 
as  yet  in  his  language  absolutely  nothing  to  show  the  likeli- 


6  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

hood  of  his  withdrawing  any  of  the  things  he  had  formerly 
said.  Upon  his  return  to  Wittenberg  he  at  once  took  a 
vigorous  part  in  the  putting  down  of  the  revolt  of  the  fanatics, 
not,  however,  because  he  disapproved  of  the  changes  in 
themselves — this  he  expressly  disclaims — but  because  he 
considered  it  imprudent  and  compromising  to  proceed  in 
so  turbulent  a  manner.1 

If,  in  order  to  estimate  the  actual  extent  of  the  reaction 
in  Luther's  mind,  we  compare  his  earlier  with  his  later 
years,  we  find  in  the  period  previous  to  1522  a  seeth- 
ing, contradictory  mixture  of  radicalism  and  positive 
elements. 

We  say  a  mixture,  for  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
historical  sources  to  say  that,  in  those  first  stormy  years  of 
Luther's  career,  what  he  stood  for  was  a  mere  religion  of 
humanity,  or  that  his  mode^f  thought  was  quite  unchristian. 
Had  this  been  the  case,  then  the  contrast  with  his  later 
period  would,  indeed  be  glaring.  As  it  is,  however,  Luther's 
statements,  as  previously  given,  prove  that,  in  spite  of 
certain  discordant  voices,  his  intention  had  ever  been  to 
preserve  everything  in  Christianity  which  he  regarded  as 
really  positive,  i.e.  everything  which  in  his  then  state  of 
thought  and  feeling  he  regarded  as  essential.2  Indeed,  he 
was  even  disposed  to  exaggerate  the  importance  of  a 
positive  faith  in  Christ  and  man's  dependence  upon  God 
at  the  expense  of  man's  natural  power  of  reason.  "  In  spite 
of  all  his  calls  for  freedom  and  of  his  pronounced  individual- 
ism "    he    preached    an    extravagant    "  dependence    upon 

1  According  to  Maurenbrecher,  "  Studien  und  Skizzen  zur  Gesch.  der 
Reformationszeit,"  p.  235,  Luther  "  fell  back  from  the  position  he  had 
assumed  from  1519  to  the  beginning  of  1521  owing  to  the  subjective, 
and  also  objective,  impossibility  [of  proceeding  in  so  radical  a  way  as 
previously.]"  H.  Lang,  a  Protestant,  whose  "M.  Luther,  ein  religioses 
Charakterbild,"  1870,  he  quotes,  goes  still  further,  and  ascribes  to 
Luther  the  entire  abandonment  of  his  own  principles ;  he  is  also  of 
opinion  that  Luther  does  not  disguise  the  fact  that  [in  the  Anabaptist 
business]  he  would  have  considered  all  in  order  had  the  reforms  been 
carried  out  by  himself.  "  That  he  was  vexed  to  see  others  reap  where 
he  had  sown,  is  only  human  nature,"  says  Lang  ;  thus  he  "  sided  with 
the  reactionaries,"  though  he  had  really  taught  what  the  fanatics 
were  putting  in  practice  ;  from  that  time  forward  he  advocated  a 
"mediaeval  ecclesiasticism,"  deprived  the  Congregations  of  the  manage- 
ment of  the  reform,  which  they  had  set  about  so  vigorously,  and  trans- 
ferred it  to  the  rulers.  Such  a  view  is  widely  held  among  Protestant 
historians  to-day. 

2  Cp.  vol.  ii.,  p.  398  f. 


CAUSES  OF  REACTION  7 

God."  x  So  far  was  he  from  the  slightest  tendency  to  embrac- 
ing a  religion  of  pure  reason  that  he  could  not  find  terms 
sufficiently  opprobrious  to  bestow  on  reason.  We  also 
know  that  he  did  not  -evolve  his  doctrine  of  Justification 
in  the  second  or  so-called  reaction  period,  as  has  recently 
been  stated  in  order  to  accentuate  the  contrast,  but  in  the 
first  period  and  in  the  quite  early  stage  of  his  development. 

His  Latin  Commentary  on  Galatians  (1519),  with  the  new 
doctrine  of  Justification,2  expresses  faith  in  the  Redeemer  and 
His  Grace  in  terms  of  startling  force  ;  he  requires  of  the  children 
of  God  the  fruits  of  Grace,  and  attention  to  every  word  of 
Scripture. 

After  that  year  and  till  1521,  the  "  Operationes  in  Psalmos" 
prove  both  his  desire  for  a  positive  religion  and  his  own  earnest- 
ness in  directing  others  to  lead  a  Christian  life  ;3  the  doctrine  of 
Justification  therein  advocated  was  admitted  by  him,  even  in  his 
old  age,  to  have  been  "  faithfully  set  forth."4 

As  other  examples  which  certainly  do  not  go  to  prove  any 
conscious  tendency  towards  theological  radicalism,  we  may 
mention  his  work  on  the  Ten  Commandments  and  the  Our 
Father,  which  he  published  in  1520  for  the  unlearned  and  for 
children  ;5  the  sermons,  which  he  continued  the  whole  year 
through  ;  various  discourses  which  he  published  in  1519,  such  as 
that  on  the  Twofold  Justice,6  in  which  he  treats  of  the  indwelling 
of  Christ  in  man  ;  that  on  Preparation  for  Death,  where  he 
inculcates  the  use  of  Confession,  of  the  Supper  and  even  of 
Extreme  Unction,  teaching  that  hope  is  to  be  placed  in  Christ 
alone,  and  that  Saints  are  to  be  honoured  as  followers  of  Christ  ;7 
finally,  many  other  writings,  sermons,  letters,  already  dealt  with, 
dating  from  the  time  prior  to  the  change. 

In  view  of  the  statements  of  this  sort  with  which  Luther's 
early  works  teem  we  cannot  accept  the  assertion  that  the 

1  J.  Schmidlin,  in  the  article  "Das  Luthertum  als  historische 
Erscheinung  "  in  the  "  Wissenschaftl.  Beilage  zur  Germania,"  1909, 
Nos.  14-16,  p.  117.  The  writer  even  speaks  of  the  "  Klotz-Abhangig- 
keit"  on  God  which  was  Luther's  ideal. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  2,  p.  436  ft. ;  Erl.  ed.,  "  Comment,  in  Galat.," 
1,  p.  iii.  ft ;   3,  p.  121  f. 

3  Cp.  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  275  f. 

4  Mathesius,  "  Aufzeichnungen  "  (Loesche,  p.  75  ft.). 

5  Cp.  Kurcz  Form  der  czehen  Gepott,  etc.,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed., 
7,  p.  214  ;  Erl.  ed.,  22,  p.  15  :  "  Faith  is  divided  into  three  principal 
parts,  according  to  the  three  persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity,"  etc. 

6  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  2,  p.  41  ff.,  143  ff.  "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  2,  p. 
322  seq.,  329  seq. 

7  Ibid.,  pp.  686,  689  ;  Erl.  ed.,  21,  pp.  259,  261.  In  the  latter 
passage  he  refers  to  the  "  sign  of  Grace,"  which  is  "  Christ  on  the  Cross 
and  all  His  dear  Saints." 


\ 


8  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

words  "  Christ,  Gospel,  Faith  and  Conscience  "  were  merely 
intended  by  Luther  to  lend  a  "  semblance  of  religion  "  to 
his  negations,  and  were,  on  his  lips,  mere  biblical  phrases. 
Louis  Saltet,  a  Catholic  historian  of  the  Church,  is  right  in 
his  opinion  concerning  this  new  theory  :  "A  negative 
Lutheranism  dominant  from  1517  to  1521  is  something  not 
vouched  for  by  history  "  ;  that  the  author  of  the  new 
teaching  "  had  arrived  at  something  very  much  like  theo- 
logical nihilism  is  a  supposition  which  there  is  nothing 
to  prove."1 

As  for  Luther's  then  attitude  towards  the  Bible,  he  actually 
exaggerates  its  importance  at  the  expense  of  reason  by  asserting 
that  reason,  whilst  well  aware  of  the  contradictions  and  the 
foolishness  of  the  truths  of  revelation,  was  nevertheless  obliged 
to  accept  them.  The  incomprehensibility,  ever  taught  by 
theologians,  of  many  of  the  mysteries  of  the  faith,  for  the  under- 
standing of  which  human  reason  alone  does  not  suffice,  Luther 
represents  as  an  open  contradiction  with  reason  ;  reason  and 
philosophy,  owing  to  original  sin,  must  necessarily  be  in  opposition 
to  God,  and  hence  faith  does  actual  violence  to  reason,  forcing  it 
to  submit,  contrary  to  its  present  nature  and  to  that  of  man. 
Hence,  in  his  estimate  of  Holy  Scripture,  far  from  being  a  rational- 
ist, he  was,  as  a  modern  Protestant  theologian  puts  it,  really  an 
"  irrationalist,"  holding  as  he  did  that  an  "  unreasonable  obedi- 
ence to  Holy  Scripture"2  was  required  of  us.  According  to 
this  same  theologian,  Luther  starts  from  "  an  irrational  concep- 
tion of  God's  veracity,"  indeed  it  is  God,  Who,  according  to 
Luther,  "  by  the  gift  of  faith,  produces  in  man  the  irrational 
belief  in  the  truth  of  the  whole  Divine  Word."  Thus  does  Luther 
reach  his  "altogether  irrational,  cut-and-dry  theology."3  If 
the  Wittenberg  Professor  asserts  later,  that  no  religion  is  so 
foolish  and  contrary  to  reason  as  Christianity,  and  that  never- 
theless he  believes  "  in  one  Jew,  Who  is  called  and  is  Jesus 
Christ,"4  this  belief,  so  singularly  expressed,  was  already  present 
to  him  in  his  first  period,  and  the  same  may  be  said,  so  the 
authority  above  referred  to  declares,  of  his  apparent  adoption  in 
later  years  of  more  positive  views,  "  since  Luther's  theological 
convictions  never  underwent  any  essential  change."5 

1  In  "  Bull,  de  litter,  ecclesiast.,"  1909,  p.  198  f. 

2  O.  Ritschl,  "  Dogmengesch.  des  Protestantismus  "  ("  Prolegomena. 
Biblicismus  und  Traditionalismus  in  der  altprotest.  Theol."),  1908,  p.  98. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  102,  103,  105. 

4  "  Tischreden,"  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  58,  p.  63.  Cp.  ibid.,  p.  7  and 
p.  100  and  other  passages  where  similar  phrases  occur.  He  says,  for 
instance,  of  belief  :  "  The  Articles  of  Faith  are  contrary  to  all  phil- 
osophy, geometry,  arithmetic  and  indeed  to  all  reason.  It  is  a  question 
of  '  eat,''  '  non?  yes  and  no.  This  no  one  can  reconcile."  For  this 
reason  he  would  not  come  to  any  "agreement"  with  Zwingli,  who 
thought  otherwise;  5  Ritschl,  ibid.,  p.  79. 


NEGATIVE  TREND  PRIOR  TO  1522      9 

If  from  the  positive  we  pass  to  the  negative  side  of  Luther's 
teaching,  we  do  indeed  find  the  latter  more  predominant 
during  the  first  period  of  his  career.  An  almost  revolutionary 
assertion  of  religious  freedom  is  found  side  by  side  with  the 
above  utterances  on  faith,  so  that  Adolf  Harnack  could  with 
some  justice  say  that  "  Kant  and  Fichte  both  arc  concealed 
in  this  Luther."1 

"Neither  Pope,  nor  bishop,  nor  any  man,"  according  to  what 
Luther  then  says,  "  has  a  right  to  dictate  even  a  syllable  to  the 
Christian  without  his  own  consent."2  If  you  have  grasped  the 
Word  in  faith,  then  "you  have  fulfilled  all  the  commandments 
and  must  be  free  from  all  things  "  ;  the  believer  becomes 
"  spiritually  lord  of  all,"  and  by  virtue  of  his  priestly  dignity, 
"he  has  power  over  all  things."3  "No  laws  can  be  imposed 
upon  Christians  by  any  authority  whatsoever,  neither  by  men, 
nor  by  angels,  except  with  their  own  consent,  for  we  are  free  of 
all  things."4  "What  is  done  otherwise  is  gross  tyranny.  .  .  . 
We  may  not  become  the  servants  of  men."  "  But  few  there  are 
who  know  the  joy  of  Christian  liberty."5 

Applying  this  to  faith  and  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  he 
says,  for  instance,  in  1522  :  "  Formerly  we  were  supposed  to  have 
no  authority  to  decide,"  but,  by  the  Gospel  which  is  now 
preached,  "  all  the  Councils  have  been  overthrown  and  set  aside  "  ; 
no  one  on  earth  has  a  right  to  decree  what  is  to  be  believed.  "  If 
I  am  to  decide  what  is  false  doctrine,  then  I  must  have  the  right 
to  judge."  Pope  and  Councils  may  enact  what  they  will,  "  but  I 
have  my  own  right  to  judge,  and  I  may  accept  it  or  not  as  I 
please."  At  the  hour  of  death,  he  continues,  each  one  must  see 
for  himself  how  he  stands  ;  "  you  must  be  sharp  enough  to  decide 
for  yourself  that  this  is  right  and  that  wrong,  otherwise  it  is 
impossible  for  you  to  hold  your  own."  "  Your  head  is  in  danger, 
your  life  is  at  stake  ;  God  must  speak  within  your  breast  and 
say  :  '  This  is  God's  Word,'  otherwise  all  is  uncertain.  Thus  you 
must  be  convinced  within  yourself,  independent  of  all  men."6 

The  individualistic  standpoint  could  scarcely  be  expressed 
more  strongly.  The  appeal  to  the  voice  of  God  "  speaking 
in  the  heart  "  renders  it  all  the  more  forcible  by  introducing 
a  pseudo-mystic  element.    It  is  an  individualism  which  might 

1  "  Preuss.  Jahrbiicher,"  136,  1909,  p.  35,  in  dealing  with  Luther's 
"  thisworldliness." 

2  "  De  captivitate  babyl.,"  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  530  ; 
"  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  5,  p.  68. 

3  From  the  writing  "  Von  der  Freyheyt  eynes  Christen  Menschen," 
"  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  7,  pp.  23,  27  f.  ;    Erl.  ed.,  27,  pp.  179,  185  f. 

4  "  De  capt.  bab.,"  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  537  ;  "  Opp.  lat. 
var.,"  5,  p.  70.  5  Ibid.,  p.  536  f.  =  68,  70. 

6  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  3,  p.  258  ff.  ;   Erl.  ed.,  132,  p.  228  f. 


10  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

logically  be  made  to  justify  every  form  of  unbelief.  In  such 
devious  paths  as  these  did  Luther  lose  himself  when  once 
he  had  set  aside  the  doctrinal  authority  of  the  Church. 

In  his  practical  instructions  and  in  what  he  says  on  the 
most  important  points  of  the  doctrine  of  salvation,  he  ever 
arrogates  to  himself  a  liberty  which  is  in  reality  mere  way- 
wardness. 

If  the  Sacraments  were  committed  to  the  Church  by  her  Divine 
Founder,  then  she  must  put  the  faithful  under  the  obligation  of 
making  use  of  them  in  the  way  Christ  intended  ;  she  may  not, 
for  instance,  leave  her  subjects  free  to  bring  their  children  to  be 
baptised  or  not,  to  confess  or  not  to  do  so,  to  receive  the  Sacra- 
ment of  the  Altar  or  to  refrain  from  receiving  it  altogether.  She 
may,  indeed  she  must,  exercise  a  certain  compulsion  in  this 
respect  by  means  of  ecclesiastical  penalties.  Luther,  however, 
refused  to  hear  of  the  Church  and  her  authority,  or  of  any  duty 
of  obedience  on  the  part  of  the  faithful,  the  result  being  that  the 
freedom  which  he  proclaimed  nullified  every  obligation  with 
respect  to  the  Sacraments. 

In  the  booklet  which  he  composed  in  the  Wartburg,  "  Von  der 
Beicht  ob  der  Bapst  Macht  habe  zu  gepieten  "  (1521),  wherein 
he  sets  aside  the  duty  of  Confession,  he  says  of  the  use  of  the 
Sacraments,  without  troubling  to  exclude  even  Baptism  :  "  He 
[man]  is  at  liberty  to  make  use  of  Confession  if,  as,  and  where  he 
chooses.  If  he  does  not  wish  you  may  not  compel  him,  for  no 
one  has  a  right  to  or  ought  to  force  any  man  against  his  will. 
Absolution  is  nevertheless  a  great  gift  of  God.  In  the  same  way 
no  man  can,  or  ought  to,  be  forced  to  believe,  but  everyone  should 
be  instructed  in  the  Gospel  and  admonished  to  believe  ;  though 
he  is  to  be  left  free  to  obey  or  not  to  obey.  All  the  Sacraments 
should  be  left  optional  to  everyone.  Whoever  does  not  wish  to 
be  baptised,  let  him  be.  Whoever  does  not  wish  to  receive  the 
Sacrament,  has  a  right  not  to  receive ;  therefore,  whoever  does 
not  wish  to  confess  is  free  before  God  not  to  do  so."  * 

The  receiving  of  Holy  Communion,  he  declared  then  and  on 
other  occasions,  was  to  remain  optional,  although  in  later  years 
he  was  most  severe  in  insisting  upon  it.  Concerning  this  Sacra- 
ment, at  the  commencement  of  1520  in  his  "  Erklerung  etlicher 
Artickel,"  he  said  that  Christ  had  not  made  the  reception  of  the 
Sacrament  compulsory ;  reception  under  one  kind  or  under  both 
was  not  prescribed,  although  "  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to  receive 
under  both  kinds."2 

May  we,  however,  say  that  Luther  made  the  reception  of  the 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  8,  p.  157  ;    Erl.  ed.,  27,  p.  343. 

2  "  Since  Christ  never  commanded  that  the  Sacrament  should  be 
received  by  everyone,  it  is  permissible  not  only  to  receive  only 
under  one  kind,  but  under  neither."  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  79  ; 
Erl.  ed.,  27,  p.  72.  Cp.  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  507  :  "  Cum  Christus  non 
praecepisset  ulla  {specie)  uti." 


NEGATIVE  TREND  PRIOR  TO  1522   11 

Sacrament  of  Baptism  entirely  optional  ?  Did  he  go  so  far  as 
to  consider  Baptism  as  something  not  necessary  ?  The  passage 
just  quoted,  which  does  away  so  thoroughly  with  the  duty  of 
Confession  and  instances  Baptism  as  a  parallel  case,  is  certainly 
somewhat  surprising  with  regard  to  Baptism.  Luther's  train  of 
thought  in  the  passage  in  question  is,  however,  rather  confused 
and  obscure.  Is  he  referring  to  the  liberty  of  the  unbaptised  to 
receive  or  not  receive  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  or  to  the 
deferring  of  Baptism,  whether  in  the  case  of  the  adult  or  in  that 
of  the  children  of  Christian  parents  ? 

He  certainly  always  held  Baptism  itself  to  be  absolutely  essential 
for  salvation ; x  only  where  it  could  not  be  had,  was  faith  able  to 
produce  its  effects.  Hence,  in  the  above  passage,  stress  must  be 
laid  on  the  words  "  no  one  can  be  forced,"  Luther's  meaning 
being  that  constraint  in  the  case  of  this  Sacrament  is  as  intoler- 
able as  in  the  case  of  the  others.  He,  moreover,  declares  immedi- 
ately afterwards  that  Christ  demands  "  Baptism  and  the  Sacra- 
ment." Elsewhere,  when  again  advocating  freedom  in  the 
matter  of  Confession  and  defending  the  work  above  referred  to, 
he  says:  "I  will  have  no  forcing  and  compelling.  Faith  and 
baptism  I  commend  ;  no  one,  however,  may  be  forced  to  accept 
it,  but  only  admonished  and  then  left  free  to  choose."2  Never- 
theless he  had  certainly  not  been  sufficiently  careful  in  his  choice 
of  words,  and  had  allowed  too  great  play  to  his  boisterous  desire 
for  freedom,  when,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  passage  quoted  from 
his  booklet  "On  Confession,"  he  seemingly  asserts  man's  "  freedom 
before  God,"  not  only  in  the  matter  of  Confession  and  Communion, 
but  also  in  that  of  Baptism.  Yet  the  object  of  the  whole  tract 
was  to  show  what  the  result  would  be,  more  particularly  in  the 
matter  of  Confession  and  Excommunication,  were  Christ's 
commandments  in  Holy  Scripture  put  in  practice,  instead  of 
attending  only  to  the  man-made  ordinances  of  Popes  and  Councils. 3 

One  modern  school  of  Protestant  unbelief  professes  to 
base  itself  on  the  earlier  Luther,  and,  in  almost  every  par- 
ticular, justifies  itself  by  appealing  to  him. 

Such  theologians  are,  however,  overstepping  the  limits 
of  what  is  right  and  fair  when  they  make  out  the  Luther  of 
that  earlier  period  to  have  been  a  true  representative  of 
that  form  of  unbelief  just  tinged  with  religion  which  is  their 
own  ideal.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Luther,  had  he  been  logical, 
should  have  arrived  at  this  conclusion,  but  he  preferred  to 
turn  aside,  repudiate  it,  and  embrace  the  profound  contra- 

1  The  Larger  Catechism  of  1529,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  21,  p.  129  : 
"  Here  (in  Scripture)  we  have  God's  command  and  institution  "  ;  hence 
it  is  "  seriously  and  strictly  commanded  that  we  be  baptised  on  pain 
of  not  being  saved." 

2  To  Haupold  and  others  on  September  17,  1521,  "  Werke,"  Erl. 
ed.,  162,  p.  257,  and  ibid.,  53,  p.  77  ("  Brief wechsel,"  3,  p.  236). 

3  The  editor  of  the  Weimar  ed.,  8,  p.  132. 


12  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

diction  involved  in  the  union  of  that  right  of  private  judgment 
he  had  proclaimed,  with  the  admission  of  binding  dogmas. 
Freedom  in  the  interpretation  of  the  sense  of  Scripture,  or 
more  correctly  the  setting  aside  of  all  ecclesiastical  and 
ostensibly  human  authority,  has  been  termed  the  formal 
principle  of  Lutheranism  ;  the  doctrine  of  Justification, 
viz.  the  chief  doctrine  of  Lutheranism,  was  called  by  the 
older  theologians  its  material  principle.  Both  principles 
were  at  variance  with  each  other  in  Luther's  mind,  just  as 
there  can  be  no  composition  between  arbitrary  judgment 
and  formulae  of  faith.  History  has  to  take  Luther  as  he 
really  was  ;  he  demanded  the  fullest  freedom  to  oppose  the 
Church  and  her  representatives  who  claimed  the  right  to 
enact  laws  concerning  faith  and  morals,  but  he  most  certainly 
was  not  disposed  to  hear  of  any  such  freedom  where  belief 
in  revelation,  or  the  acceptance  of  God's  commandments, 
was  concerned.  In  the  domain  of  the  State,  too,  he  had  no 
intention  of  interfering  with  due  subjection  to  the  authori- 
ties, though  his  hasty,  ill-considered  utterances  seemed  to 
invite  the  people  to  pull  down  every  barrier. 

In  the  second  period,  from  1522  onwards,  his  tone  has 
changed  and  he  becomes,  so  to  speak,  more  conservative 
and  more  "  religious." 

The  principle  of  freedom  of  interpretation  he  now  pro- 
claims rather  more  cautiously,  and  no  longer  appeals  in  so 
unqualified  a  manner  to  the  universal  priesthood  and  the 
sovereignty  of  the  Congregation  in  matters  of  religion.  Now 
that  the  State  has  come  to  assume  the  direction  of  the 
Church,  Luther  sees  fit  to  make  his  own  some  of  the  con- 
servative ideas  usually  dear  to  those  in  power.  As  a 
preservative  against  abuse  of  freedom  he  lays  great  stress 
on  the  "  office,"  and  the  call  to  the  work  of  preaching  given 
by  superior  authority.  "  Should  a  layman  so  far  forget 
himself  as  to  correct  a  preacher,"  says  Hcinrich  Bohmer 
when  dealing  with  Luther's  attitude  at  this  period,  "  and 
speak  publicly,  even  to  a  small  circle,  on  the  Word  of  God, 
it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  authorities,  in  the  interests  of 
public  order,  to  proceed  against  him  as  a  disturber  of  the 
peace.  How  contradictory  this  was  with  the  great  Reformer's 
previous  utterances  is  patent,  though  very  likely  he  himself 
did  not  clearly  perceive  it.    The  change  in  his  convictions  on 


COUNTER-CURRENTS  13 

this  point  had  taken  place  all  unnoticed  simultaneously 
with  the  change  in  the  inward  and  outward  situation  of  the 
evangelical  party.  .  .  .  That  his  [earlier]  view  necessarily 
called  not  only  for  unrestricted  freedom  to  teach,  but  also 
for  complete  freedom  of  worship,  was  indeed  never  fully 
perceived  by  the  Reformer  himself."  1 

The  two  divergent  tendencies,  one  positive  and  the  other 
negative,  are  apparent  throughout  Luther's  career. 

The  positive  tendency  is,  however,  more  strongly  empha- 
sised in  the  second  period.  We  shall  hear  him  giving  vent 
to  the  most  bitter  complaints  concerning  those  who  interpret 
Holy  Scripture  according  to  their  own  ideas  and  introduce 
their  own  notions  into  the  holy  and  unchanging  Word  of 
God.  As  exemplifying  his  own  adherence  to  the  truths  of 
Christianity,  the  great  and  solemn  profession  of  faith  con- 
tained in  the  work  he  wrote  in  1528  on  the  Supper,  has  been 
rightly  instanced.  As  P.  Albert  Weiss  remarks,  he  makes 
this  "  fine  profession  with  an  energy  which  goes  straight 
to  the  heart  "  and  "  in  words  which  bear  honourable  testi- 
mony to  the  depth  of  his  conviction  "  ;  it  is  true  that  here, 
too,  the  contrast  to  the  Catholic  Church,  whose  belief  he  so 
passionately  depreciates,  forces  itself  like  a  spectre  before 
his  mind.2  "  This  is  my  belief,"  he  says  at  the  end  of  the 
list  of  Christian  dogmas  which  he  accepts,  "for  this  is  what 
all  true  Christians  believe  and  what  Holy  Scripture  teaches. 
Whatever  I  may  have  left  unsaid  here  will  be  found  in  my 
booklets,  more  particularly  in  those  published  during  the 
last  four  or  five  years."3 

1  "  Luther  im  Lichte  der  neueren  Forschung,"  1906,  p.  127  (omitted 
in  the  2nd  edition).  In  1524  Luther,  when  engaged  with  Miinzer,  still 
held  that  "  all  should  preach  stoutly  and  freely  as  they  were  able  and 
against  whomsoever  they  pleased.  .  .  .  Let  the  spirits  fall  upon  one 
another  and  fight  it  out.  Should  some  be  led  astray,  so  much  the 
worse."  True  doctrine  being  the  fittest  would  nevertheless  survive 
and  prevail.  To  the  Elector  Frederick  and  Duke  Johann  of  Saxony, 
July,  1524,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  265  ("  Brief wechsel,"  4,  p.  372). 
The  contradiction  involved  in  the  freedom  which  Luther  apparently 
concedes  to  him  was  pointed  out  by  Miinzer  in  his  "  Schutzrede," 
Fol.  C.  III.,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  4,  p.  375.  Hence  when  Luther  counselled 
that  the  revolt  should  be  put  down  by  force  of  arms,  those  who  con- 
sidered the  war  unjust,  for  instance  because  they  happened  to  hold 
Anabaptist  views,  could  well  appeal  to  Luther  and  refuse  to  lend  their 
assistance.     (See  present  work,  vol.  ii.,  p.  311  f.) 

2  A.  Weiss.  "Luther  und  Luthertum,"  Denifle,  vol.  ii.,  1909, 
p.  251  f. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  26,  p.  509  ;  Frl.  ed.,  30,  p.  372  f. 


14  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

Hence  when  it  is  asserted  by  Protestants  of  rationalist 
leanings  that  Luther  recognised  only  one  form  of  faith, 
viz.  trust  in  Christ,  and  that  he  reduced  all  religion  to  this, 
it  should  be  pointed  out  that  he  required  at  the  same  time  a 
belief  in  all  revealed  truths,  and  that  his  doctrine  of  confident 
faith  in  one's  personal  salvation  and  of  trust  in  a  Gracious 
God  and  Saviour,  was  ultimately  based  on  a  general  act  of 
faith ;  "  Faith,"  he  says,  in  a  sermon  which  was  later 
embodied  in  his  Church-postils,  "  really  means  accepting  as 
true  from  the  bottom  of  our  heart  what  the  Gospel  says 
concerning  Christ,  and  also  all  the  articles  of  faith."1  It  is 
true  that  Luther  ever  insisted  on  awakening  of  confidence, 
yet  the  "  fides  fiducialis  "  as  explained  by  him  always  pre- 
supposes the  existence  of  the  "  fides  historical 

With  Luther  faith  in  the  whole  of  Divine  revelation  conies 
first,  then  the  trusting  faith  which  "  trusts  all  to  God."2 

"  His  whole  manner  of  life,"  Otto  Ritschl  says,  "  so  far  as  it 
was  directed  to  the  attainment  of  practical  aims,  was  funda- 
mentally religious,  in  the  same  way  as  his  most  important 
doctrines  concerning  God,  Christ,  the  Law,  Sin,  Justification, 
the  Forgiveness  of  Sins  and  Christian  Freedom  all  breathe  the 
spirit  of  faith,  which,  as  such,  was  confidence."  The  Protestant 
theologian  from  whom  we  quote  these  words  thinks  it  necessary 
to  say  of  the  contradictions  in  Luther  which  have  been  instanced 
by  Catholics  and  non-Catholics  alike,  that  "  at  least  in  Luther's 
own  way  of  thinking,"  they  were  not  such,  for  he  based  his 
faith  on  the  "  revelation  given  by  God's  Word  in  Holy  Scrip- 
ture."3 

In  the  polemical  writings  directed  against  Luther,  it  was 
pointed  out,  concerning  his  faith,  that  he  himself  had  described 
faith  as  a  mere  "  fancy  and  supposition  "  (opinio).     We  would, 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  122,  p.  221. 

2  Though  it  might  be  urged  that  he  subordinates  the  first  too  much 
to  the  second  even  in  his  earlier  period.  In  the  "  Kurcz  Form  der 
czehen  Gepott,"  etc.  (1520),  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  7,  p.  215  ;  Erl.  ed., 
22,  p.  15,  he  teaches  :  "  that  there  are  two  ways  of  believing  :  First, 
concerning  God,  when  I  believe  what  is  said  of  God  to  be  true,  just 
as  I  believe  that  to  be  true  which  is  said  of  the  Turks,  of  the  devil, 
or  of  hell ;  this  faith  is  more  a  sort  of  knowledge,  or  observation,  than 
real  faith.  According  to  the  other  we  believe  in  God  (Credo  in  Deum), 
i.e.  when  I  not  only  believe  that  to  be  true  which  is  said  of  God,  but 
place  my  trust  in  Him.  ...  It  is  only  such  a  faith  which  hazards  all 
on  God  .  .  .  which  makes  a  Christian.  .  .  .  This  is  a  living  faith  .  .  . 
and  this  none  can  give  but  God  alone."  The  Catholic  Church,  however, 
had  always  required  a  "  living  faith,"  one  working  by  charity  (fides 
caritate  formata).  It  is  remarkable  how  much,  in  the  above  passage, 
Luther  allows  the  formal  principle  of  historical  faith,  viz.  the  authority 
of  the  Revealing  God,  to  recede  into  the  background. 

3  O.  Ritschl,  "  Dogmengesch.  des  Protestantismus,"  1,  p.  81. 


COUNTER-CURRENTS  15 

however,  suggest  the  advisability  of  considerable  caution,  for 
according  to  other  passages  and  from  the  context,  it  is  plain  that 
what  he  intends  by  the  word  "  opinio  "  is  rather  a  belief,  and, 
besides,  he  adds  the  adjective  "  firma  "  to  the  word  incriminated. 
It  is  of  course  a  different  question  whether  the  absolute  cer- 
tainty of  faith  can  be  attributed  to  that  faith  on  which  he  lays 
such  great  stress,  viz.  the  purely  personal  fides  fiducialis  in 
one's  salvation  through  Christ,  and,  further,  whether  this  cer- 
tainty can  be  found  in  the  articles,  which,  according  to  Luther's 
teaching,  the  Christian  deduces  from  the  Word  of  God  in  Scripture 
by  a  subjective  examination  in  which  he  has  only  his  own  private 
judgment  to  depend  on. 

However  this  may  be,  we  find  Luther  till  the  very  end  insisting 
strongly  on  the  submission  of  reason  to  the  Word  of  God,  so  that 
E.  Troeltsch,  the  Heidelberg  theologian,  could  well  describe  his 
attitude  as  mediaeval  on  account  of  the  subjection  he  demands  to 
dogma.  For  this  very  reason  he  questions  the  view,  that  Luther 
really  "  paved  the  way  for  the  modern  world."  Troeltsch, 
nevertheless,  is  not  disinclined  to  see  in  Luther's  independence 
of  thought  a  considerable  affinity  with  the  spirit  of  modern  days. 1 
This  brings  us  to  the  other  side  of  the  subject. 

Let  us  follow  up  the  other,  the  negative,  tendency  in 
Luther,  from  1522  onwards,  which  makes  for  complete 
religious  independence. 

Of  one  doctrine  in  which  it  is  manifest  Harnack  says, 
and  his  statement  is  equally  applicable  to  others  :  "  The  uni- 
versal priesthood  of  all  the  faithful  was  never  relin- 
quished by  Luther,  but  he  became  much  more  cautious  in 
applying  it  to  the  congregations  actually  in  existence."2 
Luther,  according  to  him,  expresses  himself  "  very  vari- 
ably "  concerning  the  "  competency  of  the  individual 
congregations,  of  the  congregations  as  actually  existing  or 
as  representing  the  true  Church." 

The  author  of  the  schism,  in  spite  of  all  the  positive 
elements  he  retained  during  the  whole  of  this  period  of 
reaction  and  till  the  very  end,  had  no  settled  conception  of  the 
Church,  and  the  subjective  element,  and  with  it  the  negative, 
disintegrating  tendency  therefore  necessarily  predominated 
in  his  mind.    It  is  not  only  Catholics,  from  their  standpoint, 

1  "  Histor.  Zeitschrift,"  97,  p.  1  ft.  Art.  :  "  Die  Bedeutung  des 
Protestantismus  fur  die  Entstehung  der  modernen  Welt,"  p.  28 :  "It 
is  evident  that  Protestantism  cannot  be  regarded  as  directly  paving  the 
way  for  the  modern  world.  On  the  contrary,  it  appears  rather  as  an 
entire  reversion  to  mediaeval  fashions  of  thought.  It  is  shown  that 
Protestantism  was  and  yet  is,  at  least  to  some  extent,  a  hindrance  to 
the  development  of  the  modern  world." 

2  "  Dogmengesch.,"  34,  p.  830,  n. 


16  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

who  assert  that  his  whole  life's  work  was  above  all  of  a 
destructive  character,  for  many  Protestant  writers  who 
look  below  the  surface  agree  with  them,  notwithstanding 
all  their  appreciation  for  Luther. 

"  Wittenberg,"  says  Friedrich  Paulsen,  "  was  the  birthplace 
of  the  revolutionary  movement  in  Germany.  .  .  .  Revolution  is 
the  fittest  name  by  which  to  describe  it."  The  term  "  Reforma- 
tion," is,  he  declares,  inexact  ;  a  "  reformation,"  according 
to  Paulsen,  was  what  "  the  great  Councils  of  the  fifteenth  century 
sought  to  bring  about."  "  Luther's  work  was  not  a  '  reforma- 
tion,' a  re-shaping  of  the  existing  Church  by  her  own  means,  but 
a  destruction  of  the  old  form ;  indeed,  we  may  say,  a  thorough- 
going denial  of  the  Church."  Paulsen  points  out  that,  in  his 
work  addressed  to  the  knights  of  the  Teutonic  Order,  Luther 
advocates  "  ecclesiastical  anarchy  "  in  seeking  to  lead  them  to 
despise  all  spiritual  authority  and  to  break  their  vow  of  chastity. 
The  tract  in  question  was  repeatedly  published  as  a  broadside, 
and  passed  into  the  Wittenberg  and  other  early  collections  of 
his  works.1 

From  the  Catholic  standpoint,  says  Gustav  Kawerau,  "  Paul- 
sen was  quite  right  in  branding  Luther  as  a  revolutionary  "  ; 
Luther's  new  wine  could  not,  however,  so  he  says,  do  otherwise 
than  burst  the  old  bottles.2 

The  "  wine  "  which  Luther  had  to  offer  was  certainly  in 
a  state  of  fermentation,  which,  with  his  rejection  of  all 
ecclesiastical  authority,  made  it  savour  strongly  of  nihilism. 
According  to  Luther  religious  truth  had  been  altogether 
disfigured  even  in  Apostolic  times,  owing  to  the  rise  of  the 
doctrine  of  free-will.  "  For  at  least  a  thousand  years,"  he 
repeatedly  asserts,  truth  had  been  set  aside  because,  owing 
to  the  illegal  introduction  of  external  authority  in  the 
Church,  "  we  have  been  deprived  of  the  right  of  judging  and 
have  been  unjustly  forced  to  accept  what  the  Pope  and  the 
Councils  decreed  "  ;  yet  no  one  can  "  determine  or  decide 
for  others  what  faith  is,"  and,  since  Christ  has  warned  us 
against  false  prophets,  "  it  clearly  follows  that  I  have  a  right 
to  judge  of  doctrine."3 

One  person  only  has  the  right — of  this  he  is  ever  sure — 

1  Letter  of  December,  1523,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  12,  p.  232; 
Erl.  ed.,  29,  p.  16  ("  Brief wechsel,"  4,  p.  266).  There  we  read  :  "  God 
is  older  than  all  the  Councils  and  the  Fathers."  "  Are  we  to  send 
God  to  school  and  prune  the  feathers  (quill  pens)  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  " 
"  We  hazard  all  on  the  Word  .  .  .  against  all  the  Churches."  Ibid., 
p.  235-238  =  21-25. 

2  "  Theolog.  Literaturztg.,"  1884,  p.  37  seg. 

s  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  132,  p.  228.    Church  postils 


SUBJECTIVISM  17 

to  proclaim  doctrines  as  undeniable  truths  come  down  from 
heaven.  "  I  am  certain  that  I  have  my  dogmas  from 
heaven."  *■  "I  am  enlightened  by  the  Spirit,  He  is  my 
teacher."2  "  We  have  seen  him  raised  up  by  God,"  so  his 
friends  declared  immediately  after  his  death, 3  and,  so  far  as 
they  were  in  agreement  with  him,  they  claimed  a  heavenly 
authority  on  his  behalf.  In  spite  of  all  this  Luther  never  saw 
fit  to  restrict  in  principle  the  freedom  of  determining  and 
judging  doctrine  ;  the  meaning  of  Scripture  he  permits 
every  man  to  search  out,  the  one  indispensable  condition 
being,  that  Scripture  should  be  interpreted  under  the 
inspiration  of  the  Spirit  from  on  high,  in  which  case  he 
presumed  that  the  interpretation  would  agree  with  his  own. 
The  numerous  "  clear  and  plain  "  passages  from  Scripture 
which  were  to  guide  the  interpreter,  were  to  him  a  guarantee 
of  this  ;  he  himself  had  followed  nothing  else.  The  mis- 
fortune is  that  he  never  attempted  to  enumerate  or  define 
these  passages,  and  that  many  of  those  very  passages  which 
appeared  to  him  so  clear  and  plain  were  actually  urged 
against  him ;  for  instance,  the  words  of  institution  by  the 
Zwinglians  and  the  texts  on  Justification  by  certain  of  his 
followers  and  by  the  Catholics. 

The  fact  that  freedom  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible  pro- 
duced, and  must  necessarily  produce,  anarchy  of  opinion,  has, 
by  the  representatives  of  the  Rationalistic  school  of  Protestant 
theology,  been  urged  against  the  positive  elements  which  Luther 
chose  to  retain.  The  tendency  which,  had  he  not  set  himself 
resolutely  against  it,  would  have  brought  Luther  even  in  later 
years  face  to  face  with  a  purely  naturalistic  view  of  life,  has  been 
clearly  and  accurately  pointed  out.  Paul  Wernle,  a  theologian 
whose  ideal  of  a  renewed  Christianity  is  a  natural  religion  clad  in 
religious  dress,  points  to  the  anarchy  resulting  from  the  multitude 
of  interpretations,  and  attacks  Luther's  Bible  faith  for  the 
contradictions  it  involves.  "  The  appeal  to  '  Bible  Christianity,' 
and  '  Primitive  New  Testament  Christianity,'  produced  a  whole 
crop  of  divergent  views  of  Christianity  "  ;  "  the  limitations  of 
this  Renascence  of  Christianity,"  which  was  no  real  Renascence 
at  all,  are,  he  says,  very  evident;  Luther  had  summed  up  "  the 
theology  of  Paul  in  a  one-sided  fashion,  purely  from  the  point  of 
view  of   fear  of,    and   consolation  in,  sin";  his  comprehension 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  184  ;    "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  6,  p.  391. 

2  Ibid.,  6,  p.  540  =  5,  p.  74. 

3  Through  the  "  Reformer  sent  by  God,"  the  Father  had  "  revealed  " 
the  mystery  of  His  Son.  Thus  Bugenhagen,  on  February  22,  1546. 
Cp.  vol.  vi.,  XL.,  2. 

III. — C 


18  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

of  Paul  was  "  one-sided,  repellent  and  narrow,"  and,  in  favour 
of  Paul,  "  he  depreciated  most  unjustly  the  first  three  Gospels  "  ; 
the  new  theology  "  rested  exclusively  on  Romans  and  Galatians," 
and,  root  and  branch,  is  full  of  contradictions.1 

Luther  himself  invited  such  criticism  by  his  constant  advocacy 
of  individualism  in  his  later  no  less  than  in  his  earlier  years.  "  If 
individualism  be  introduced  even  into  religious  life,"  writes  E. 
Troeltsch,  "  then  the  Church  loses  her  significance  as  an  absolute 
and  objective  authority."  And  concerning  the  "  whole  crop  of 
views  on  Christianity  "  which  sprang  from  such  individualism, 
he  says  with  equal  justice  :  "A  truth  which  can  and  must  live  in 
so  many  embodiments,  can  of  its  very  nature  never  be  expressed 
in  one  simple  and  definable  form.  It  is  in  its  nature  to  undergo 
historical  variations  and  to  take  on  different  forms  at  one  and 
the  same  time."2  But  this  is  the  renunciation  of  stable  truth,  in 
other  words  :   scepticism. 

Denifle  put  it  clearly  and  concisely  when  he  said  :  "  Luther 
planted  the  seed  of  present-day  Protestant  incredulity."3 

"  The  tendency  of  the  Reformation,"  declares  W.  Herrmann, 
a  representative  of  ultra-liberal  Protestant  theology,  was  in  the 
direction  of  the  views  he  holds,  viz.  towards  a  rationalistic 
Christianity,  not  at  all  towards  "  the  view  of  religion  dear  to 
orthodox  theology."  He  is  convinced,  that  "it  is  high  time  for 
us  to  resume  the  work  of  the  Reformers  and  of  Schleiermacher, 
and  to  consider  what  we  are  really  to  understand  by  religion." 
Religion  is  not  an  "  unreasoning  "  faith  in  dogmas,  nor  a  "  non- 
moral  "  assent  to  alien  ideas,  "  but  a  personal  experience  "  such 
as  the  great  Reformation  doctrine  of  Justification  rightly  assumed. 
Yet,  even  now,  theologians  still  lack  that  "  comprehension  of 
religion  common  to  all."  All  that  is  needed  is  to  take  Luther's 
ideas  in  real  earnest,  for,  according  to  Herrmann,  the  "  true 
Christian  understanding  of  what  faith,  i.e.  religion  [in  the  above, 
modern  sense],  is,  was  recovered  at  the  Reformation."  Thus  only, 
he  concludes,  can  we  escape  from  the  hindrances  to  belief  pre- 
sented by  the  present  development  of  science."4 

It  is  with  a  similar  appeal  to  Luther  that  another  theologian, 
P.  Martin  Rade,  the  editor  of  the  "  Christliche  Welt,"  spreads  his 
sails  to  the  blast  of  modern  infidelity.  According  to  him  Luther 
was  "  one  of  the  fathers  of  subjectivism  and  of  modern  ways  "  ; 
Luther,  by  his  doctrine  of  Justification  by  faith,  gave  to  subjective 
piety  "  its  first  clumsy  expression  "  ;  the  faith  which  Luther 
taught  the  world  was  an  "  individual  staking  "  of  all  on  God's 
mercy.     Yet,  he  complains,  there  are  people  within  the  Evan- 

1  "  Die  Renaissance  des  Christentums  im  16  Jahrh.,"  1904,  p.  30  ff. 

2  "  Die  christliche  Religion  "  in  "  Kultur  der  Gegenwart,"  1,  p.  4, 
397.  Ibid.  :  "  The  final  result  is  the  recognition  by  Protestantism  of 
an  internal  antinomy  of  religion  and  Church,  which  are  unable  to 
subsist  without  each  other  nor  yet  to  suffer  each  other,  from  which 
conflict  there  can  only  spring  a  fresh  presentment  of  the  purer, 
churchless,  Christian  idea." 

3  "  Luther  und  Luthertum,"  1,  p.  689  (l2,  p.  723). 

4  "  Zeitschrift  fur  Theol.  und  Kirche,"  18,  1908,  p.  74  seq.,  147  seq. 


SUBJECTIVISM  19 

gelical  Church  who  are  still  afraid  of  subjectivism.  "  This  fear 
torments  the  best,  and  raises  a  mighty  barrier  in  front  of  those 
who  struggle  onwards."  The  barrier  is  composed  of  the  articles 
of  the  creed  which  have  remained  upstanding  since  Luther's 
day.  And  yet  "  each  scholar  can,  and  may,  only  represent 
Christianity  as  it  appears  to  him."  "  For  us  Protestants  there 
is  in  these  circumstances  only  one  way.  We  recognise  no  external 
authority  which  could  cut  the  knot  for  us.  Hence  we  must  take 
our  position  seriously,  and  embrace  and  further  the  cause  of 
subjectivism."  Thanks  to  Luther  "  religion  has  been  made 
something  subjective  ;  too  subjective  it  can  never  be  .  .  .  all 
precautions  adopted  to  guard  against  religious  subjectivism  are 
really  unevangelical."  We  must,  on  the  contrary,  say  with  Luther  : 
"  God  will  always  prevail  and  His  Word  remains  for  all  eternity, 
and  His  truth  for  ever  and  ever."  "  Let  the  Bible  speak  for  itself 
and  work  of  itself  "  without  any  "  human  dogma,"  and  then  you 
have  the  true  spirit  of  Luther's  Reformation,  "  the  very  spirit 
which  breathed  through  it  from  the  day  when  it  first  began  to 
play  its  part  in  the  history  of  the  world."  This  writer  is  well 
acquainted  with  the  two  great  objections  to  that  principle  of 
Luther,  which  he  praises,  yet  he  makes  no  attempt  to  answer 
them  any  more  than  Luther  himself  did.  The  first  is  :  "  Where 
is  all  this  to  end  ?  Where  shall  we  find  anything  stable  and 
certain  ?  "  He  simply  consoles  the  questioner  by  stating  that 
"  Science  provides  its  own  remedy."  The  second  objection  is  : 
"  But  the  masses  require  to  be  governed,  and  educated,"  in 
other  words,  religion  must  be  an  assured,  heaven-sent  gift  to  all 
men,  whereas  only  the  few  are  capable  of  proving  things  for 
themselves  and  following  the  profession  of  the  learned.  "  Herein 
lies  the  problem,"  is  the  resigned  answer,  "  which  we  do  not  fail 
to  recognise,  and  with  it  Protestantism  has  hitherto  proved  itself 
sadly  incapable  of  grappling";  "entirely  new  forces  are  re- 
quired "  for  this  purpose.  Whence  these  forces  are  to  come,  we 
are  not  told.1 

That  all  are  not  determined  to  follow  the  course  which  Luther 
had  entered  upon  is  but  natural.  To  many  the  Wittenberg 
Professor  remains  simply  a  guardian  of  the  faith,  a  bulwark  of 
conservatism,  and  even  the  safety-valve  he  opened  many  would 
fain  see  closed  again.  Characteristic  of  this  group  is  the  com- 
plaint recently  brought  forward  by  the  Evangelical  "  Monats- 
korrespondenz  "  against  Friedrich  Nietzsche,  for  having  described 
Luther's  reformation,  with  scant  respect,  as  the  "  Peasant 
Revolt  of  the  mind,"  and  spoken  of  the  "  destruction  of  throne 
and  altar  "  which  he  had  brought  about.2 

If,  from  the  above,  we  attempt  to  judge  of  the  range  of 
Luther's  so-called  "  reaction "  in  his  second  period,  we 
find  that  it  can  no  more  be  regarded  as  a  return  to  positive 

1  "  Christliche  Welt,"  1904,  No.  26. 

2  "  Monatskorr.  des  Evangel.  Bundes,"  1908,  No.  9. 


20  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

beliefs  than  his  first  period  can  be  described  as  almost 
wholly  Rationalistic.  In  both  cases  we  should  be  guilty  of 
exaggeration  ;  in  the  one  stage  as  well  as  in  the  other  there 
is  a  seething  mixture  of  radical  principles  and  tendencies 
on  the  one  hand,  and  of  Christian  faith  and  more  positive 
ones  on  the  other.  In  his  earlier  years,  however,  Luther 
allows  the  former,  and,  in  the  second,  the  latter  to  predomi- 
nate. Formerly,  at  the  outset  of  the  struggle,  he  had  been 
anxious  to  emphasise  his  discovery  which  was  to  be  the 
loosing  of  imaginary  bonds,  while  the  old  beliefs  he  still 
shared  naturally  retreated  more  or  less  into  the  background ; 
now,  owing  partly  to  his  calmer  mode  of  thought,  partly  to 
insure  greater  stability  to  his  work  and  in  order  to  shake  off 
the  troublesome  extremists,  Luther  was  more  disposed  to 
display  the  obverse  of  the  medal  with  the  symbols  of  faith 
and  order,  without  however  repudiating  the  reverse  with  the 
cap  of  liberty.  How  he  contrived  to  reconcile  these  contra- 
dictions in  his  own  mind  belongs  to  the  difficult  study  of  his 
psychology.  On  account  of  these  contradictions  he  must 
not,  however,  be  termed  a  theological  nihilist,  since  he 
made  the  warmest  profession  of  faith  in  the  principles  of 
Christianity ;  neither  may  he  be  called  a  hero  of  positive 
faith,  seeing  that  he  bases  everything  on  his  private  accept- 
ance.  To  describe  him  rightly  we  should  have  to  call  him 
the  man  of  contradictions,  for  he  was  in  contradiction  not 
merely  with  the  Church,  but  even  with  himself.  The  only 
result  of  the  so-called  reaction  in  Luther  during  the  'twenties, 
and  later,  was  the  bringing  into  greater  prominence  of  this 
inner  spirit  of  contradiction. 

The  startling  antagonism  between  negation  and  belief 
within  his  mind  found  expression  in  his  whole  action. 
Though  his  character,  his  vivacity,  imaginativeness  and 
rashness  concealed  to  some  extent  the  rift,  his  incessant 
public  struggles  also  doing  their  part  in  preventing  him  from 
becoming  wholly  alive  to  the  contradictions  in  his  soul,  yet 
in  his  general  behaviour,  in  his  speech,  writings  and  actions 
we  find  that  instability,  restlessness  and  inconstancy  which 
were  the  results  at  once  of  this  contrast  and  of  the  fierce 
struggle  going  on  within  him.  The  vehemence  which  so 
frequently  carries  him  away  was  a  product  of  this  state  of 
*fment.  Often  we  find  him  attempting  to  smother  his 
consciousness  of  it  by  recourse  to  jesting.    His  conviviality 


THE  NEW  CHURCHES  21 

and  his  splendid  gift  of  sympathy  concealed  from  his  friends 
the  antagonism  he  bore  within  him.  All  that  the  public, 
and  most  of  his  readers,  perceived  was  the  mighty  force  of 
his  eloquence  and  personality  and  the  wealth  and  freshness 
of  his  imagery.  They  sufficed  to  hide  from  the  common 
herd  the  discrepancies  and  flaws  inherent  in  his  standpoint. 
Wealth  and  versatility,  such  are  the  terms  sometimes 
applied  by  Protestants  to  the  frequent  contradictions  met 
with  in  his  statements.  In  the  same  way  the  ambiguity  of 
Kant's  philosophy  has  been  accounted  one  of  its  special 
advantages,  whereas  ambiguity  really  denotes  a  lack  of 
sequence  and  coherence,  or  at  the  very  least  a  lack  of 
clearness.  Truth  undefiled  displays  both  wealth  and 
beauty  without  admixture  of  obscurity  or  of  ambiguity. 

Luther's  "  wealth  "  was  thus  described  by  Adolf  Hausrath  : 
"  Every  word  Luther  utters  plays  in  a  hundred  lights  and  every 
eye  meets  with  a  different  radiance,  which  it  would  gladly  fix. 
His  personality  also  presents  a  hundred  problems.  Of  all  great 
men  Luther  was  the  most  paradoxical.  The  very  union,  so  charac- 
teristic of  him,  of  mother-wit  and  melancholy  is  quite  peculiar. 
His  wanton  humour  seems  at  times  to  make  a  plaything  of  the 
whole  world,  yet  the  next  moment  this  seemingly  incurable 
humorist  is  oppressed  with  the  deepest  melancholy,  so  that  he 
knows  not  what  to  do  with  himself.  ...  In  one  corner  of  his 
heart  lurks  a  demon  of  defiance  who,  when  roused,  carries  away 
the  submissive  monk  to  outbursts  which  he  himself  recognises  as 
the  work  of  some  alien  force,  stronger  than  his  firmest  resolutions. 
He  was  the  greatest  revolutionary  of  the  age  and  yet  he  was  a 
conservative  theologian,  yea,  conservative  to  obstinacy.  .  .  . 
He  insisted  at  times  upon  the  letter  as  though  the  salvation  of 
the  entire  Church  depended  upon  it,  and  yet  we  find  him  rejecting 
whole  books  of  the  Bible  and  denying  their  Apostolic  spirit. 
Reason  appears  to  him  as  a  temptress  from  the  regions  of  enchant- 
ment, intellect  as  a  mere  rogue,  who  proves  to  his  own  satis- 
faction just  what  he  is  desirous  of  seeing  proved,  and  yet,  armed 
with  this  same  reason  and  intellect,  Luther  went  out  boldly  into 
the  battle-fields  of  the  prolonged  religious  war."1 

2.   From  the  Congregational  to  the  State  Church 
Secularisations 

In  the  first  stage  of  his  revolt  against  the  Church,  Luther 
had  imagined  that  the  new  order  of  things  could  be  brought 
about  amongst  his  followers  merely  by  his  declaiming  against 
outward  forms  ;    repeatedly  he  asserted  that  the  Christian 

1  "  Luthers  Leben,"  1,  p.  vii.  f. 


22  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

life  consisted  wholly  in  faith  and  charity,  that  faith  would 
display  its  power  spontaneously  in  good  works,  and  that  thus 
everything  would  arrange  itself ;  a  new  and  better  Church 
would  spring  up  within  the  old  one,  though  minus  a  hier- 
archy, minus  all  false  doctrine  and  holiness-by-works. 

Up  to  the  commencement  of  the  'twenties  his  efforts  had, 
in  fact,  been  directed  not  to  the  setting  up  of  new  congre- 
gations but  to  the  reconstruction  of  the  existing  Church 
system.  Previous  to  his  drafting  of  the  plan  comprised  in  the 
writing  he  sent  to  Prague,  on  the  appointment  of  ecclesi- 
astical ministers  (vol.  ii.,  p.  Ill  f.),  in  which  we  find  the 
congregational  organisation  proposed  as  a  model  for  the 
German  Church,  he  was  as  yet  merely  desirous  of  paving 
the  way  for  what  he  looked  on  as  a  reformation  within  the 
already  existing  Church,  and  this  by  means  of  the  rulers 
and  nobles. 

His  work  "  An  den  christlichen  Adel,"  to  which  we  must 
now  return  in  order  to  consider  it  from  this  particular  stand- 
point, was  composed  with  this  object.  By  it  he  sought  to 
rouse  the  rulers  and  those  in  power  who  had  opened  their 
hearts  to  the  "  Christian  "  faith,  i.e.  to  the  new  Evangel, 
to  take  in  hand  the  moral  and  religious  reformation  on  the 
lines  indicated  by  himself.  Thus  he  appealed,  as  almost  all 
sectarians  had  instinctively  done  from  the  very  first,  to  the 
secular  authorities  and  the  power  of  the  Princes  in  order  to 
attain  his  special  ecclesiastical  ends.  The  secular  Estates, 
already  covetous  of  increased  power  and  independence, 
were  invited  in  these  fiery  pages  to  take  their  stand  against 
the  Papacy  and  the  hierarchy,  just  as  they  would  against 
"  a  destroyer  of  Christendom,"1  and  "  to  punish  them 
severely"  on  account  of  divers  disorders  and  "for  their 
abuse  of  excommunication  and  their  shocking  blasphemies 
against  the  name  of  God,"2  in  short,  "  to  put  an  end  to  the 
whole  affair."3    The  last  words,  found  in  the  writing  "  On 

1  "  An  den  christlichen  Adel,"  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  428  ; 
Erl.  ed.,  21,  p.  307. 

2  Ibid.,  429  =  308. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  258  ;  Erl.  ed.,  162,  pp.  197  f.  :  "  Seeing 
that  Bishops  and  Prelates  remain  quiescent,  do  not  resist,  care  but 
little  and  so  leave  Christendom  to  go  to  destruction,  we  must  humbly 
implore  God's  help  to  oppose  the  evil,  and  after  that  put  our  own 
hands  to  the  job.  ...  It  is  not  right  that  we  should  support  the 
servants  and  menials  of  the  Pope  and  even  his  court  fools  and  harlots 
to  the  harm  and.  injury  of  our  souls.  .  .  .  These,  surely,  are  the  real 


SECULAR  REFORMERS  23 

good  works,"  were  addressed  to  the  "  King,  the  Princes, 
Nobles,  Townships  and  people  generally." 

Thus  to  force  the  two  powers,  secular  and  ecclesiastical, 
out  of  their  spheres,  handing  over  the  supervision  of  the 
Church  to  the  secular  authorities1  can  only  be  characterised 
as  an  attack  upon  the  whole  Christian  and  moral  order  of 
things,  on  the  whole  previous  development  of  the  Church 
and  on  the  highest  principles  of  religion.  It  is  true  that  the 
Catholic  States  had  already  appropriated  many  of  the 
rights  really  appertaining  to  the  Church,  but  to  carry  their 
interference  so  far  as  Luther  advised,  had  never  yet  occurred 
to  them.  Indeed,  the  subversion  of  order  planned  by  Luther 
was  so  great,  that  the  impossibility  of  carrying  out  his 
project  must  have  speedily  become  apparent  to  him.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  actual  number  of  those  whose  hearts  had 
been  awakened  by  the  Evangel  to  the  extent  of  sharing 
Luther's  extreme  views  was  not  at  all  considerable. 

When  anxious  friends  pointed  out  to  Luther  how 
revolutionary  his  undertaking  was,  his  excuse  was  merely 
this  :  "I  am  blameless,  seeing  that  my  only  object  is  to 
induce  the  nobles  of  Germany  to  set  a  limit  to  the  en- 
croachments of  the  Romanists  by  passing  resolutions  and 
edicts,  not  by  means  of  the  sword  ;  for  to  fight  against  an 
unwarlike  clergy  would  be  like  fighting  against  women  and 
children."2  Hence,  so  long  as  no  blood  was  shed,  the  over- 
throw of  the  legal  status  of  the  Church  met  with  his  full 
approval. 

The  torrents  of  angry  abuse  which  Luther  soon  after- 
wards poured  forth  upon  those  in  power  because  they  would 

Turks  whom  the  King,  the  Princes  and  the  Nobles  ought  to  attack 
first,"  just  as  a  father  of  a  family  who  has  gone  out  of  his  mind  "  must 
be  placed  under  restraint  and  controlled.  .  .  .  The  best  and  only  thing 
to  do  was,  for  the  King,  Princes,  Nobles,  townships  and  parishes  to 
put  their  hands  to  the  business  and  make  an  end  of  it  themselves,  so 
that  the  bishops  and  clergy,  who  are  so  timorous,  may  be  able  to  follow. 
.  .  .  Nor  must  any  attention  be  paid  to  the  ban  and  the  threats  by 
means  of  which  they  fancy  they  can  save  their  skins." 

1  In  strange  contrast,  to  the  last  passage  quoted,  he  goes  on  to 
inculcate  the  most  respectful  obedience  to  the  secular  authorities  : 
"  Even  though  they  do  what  is  wrong,  still  God  wills  that  they  should 
be  obeyed  without  subterfuge  or  danger"  (p.  259  =  198).  They  have 
"  nothing  to  do  with  the  preaching  and  the  faith."  "  They  must  not 
be  resisted  even  though  they  do  what  is  unjust  "  (ibid.).  "There  are 
many  abuses  prevalent  amongst  the  secular  authorities,"  etc.  (p.  260  = 
199).     He  is  accordingly  very  anxious  for  their  improvement. 

2  To  Spalatin,  February  27,  1521,  "  Brief wechsel,"  3,  p.  90. 


24  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

not  follow  his  call  and  allow  themselves  to  be  "  awakened,' ' 
were  simply  proofs  of  the  futility  of  his  plan. 

No  demagogue  had  ever  before  filled  Germany  with  such  noisy 
abuse  of  the  Princes  as  Luther  now  did  in  works  intended  for  the 
masses,  where  he  declared,  for  instance,  that  "  God  has  sent  our 
Rulers  mad  "  ;  that  "  they  command  their  subjects  just  what 
they  please  "  ;  that  they  are  "  scamps  "  and  "  fools  "  ;  that  he  is 
forced  to  resist,  "  at  least  by  word,"  these  "  ungracious  Lords 
and  angry  squires  "  on  account  of  their  "  blasphemies  against 
the  Divine  Majesty."1  He  denounced  them  to  the  populace  as 
having  heaped  together  their  "  gold  and  goods  "  unjustly,  just 
as  "  Nimrod  had  acquired  his  goods  and  his  gold."2  He  accuses 
them  "of  allowing  everything  to  drift,  and  of  hindering  one 
another  "  ;  "  plenty  of  them  even  vindicate  the  cause  of  Anti- 
christ,"3 therefore  the  Judgment  of  God  must  fall  upon  our 
"  raving  Princes."  "  God  has  blinded  them  and  made  them 
stupid  that  they  may  run  headlong  to  destruction."4 

This  he  wrote  on  the  eve  of  the  fearful  events  of  the  Peasant 
Rising. 

Thus  his  ideal  of  the  future  was  now  shattered,  viz.  the 
spiritual  society  and  new  Christendom  which  he  had  planned 
to  establish  with  the  help  of  the  Princes.  "  This  dream 
passed  rapidly  away.  All  that  remained  was  a  deep-seated 
pessimism.  .  .  .  From  that  time  the  persuasion  grew  on 
him  that  the  world  will  always  remain  the  same,  that  it  can 
never  be  governed  according  to  the  Evangel  and  can  never 
be  rendered  really  Christian  ;  likewise,  that  true  Christians 
will  always  be  but  few  in  number."5 

Hence  these  few  Christians  must  become  the  object  of  his 
solicitude.  He  is  more  and  more  inspired  by  the  fantastic 
notion  that  Popery  is  to  be  speedily  overthrown  by  God 

1  Preface  to  the  writing  "  Von  welltlicher  Uberkeytt  wie  weytt  man 
yhr  Gehorsam  schuldig  sey  "  (1523).  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  11,  p. 
246  ;    Erl.  ed.,  22,  p.  62  f. 

2  "  VomMissbrauchderMessen,"  1521-1522,  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed., 
8,  p.  561 ;  Erl.  ed.,  28,  p.  139.  To  Spalatin,  August  15,  1521,  "  Brief- 
wechsel,"  3,  p.  219  :  "  Principem  esse  et  now  aliqua  parte  latronem 
esse,  aut  non  aut  vix  possibile  est,  eoque  maiorem,  quo  maior  princeps 
fuerit."  This  he  says  in  excuse  of  his  acceptance  of  the  hospitality  of 
the  Wartburg  offered  him  by  the  Elector. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  8,  p.  679  j  Erl.  ed.,  22,  p.  48  f.  "  Von 
welltlicher  Uberkeytt." 

*  To  the  Elector  Frederick  and  Duke  Johann  of  Saxony,  July,  1524. 
"  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  210  f.  ;  Erl.  ed.,  55,  p.  256  f.  ("  Brief wech- 
sel,"  4,  p.  372).  Cp.  for  above  passages  P.  Drews  "  Entsprach  das 
Staatskirchentum  dem  Ideale  Luthers  ?  "  in  "  Zeitschrift  fur  Theol. 
uid  Kirche,"  18,  1908,  Erganzungsheft,  p.  31  ff. 

6  Drews,  ibid.,  p.  34. 


CONGREGATIONALISM  25 

Himself,  by  His  Word  and  by  the  breath  of  His  Mouth.  In 
the  meantime  he  expects  the  new  Church  to  develop  spon- 
taneously from  the  congregations  by  the  power  of  God, 
even  though  at  first  it  should  consist  of  only  a  small  number 
of  faithful  souls. 

The  congregational  ideal,  as  a  passing  stage  in  his  theory 
of  Church  formation,  absorbed  him,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  more  particularly  from  the  year  1523.  The  congrega- 
tions were  to  be  self-supporting  after  once  the  new  teaching 
had  been  introduced  amongst  them.  In  accordance  with  the 
Evangel,  they  were  to  be  quite  independent  and  to  choose 
their  own  spiritual  overseers.  From  among  these,  super- 
intendents were  to  be  selected,  to  be  at  the  head  of  the 
congregations  of  the  country,  and  as  it  were  general-bishops, 
assisted  by  visitors,  of  course  all  laymen,  no  less  than  those 
from  whom  they  derived  their  authority  and  by  whom,  for 
instance  for  bad  doctrine,  they  might  be  removed.  The 
above-mentioned  letter  sent  to  Prague,  on  the  appointment 
of  ministers  in  the  Church  (1523),  contained  further  details. 
Other  statements  made  by  Luther  about  that  same  time, 
and  already  quoted,  supply  what  is  here  lacking ;  for  instance, 
his  ascribing  to  each  member  of  the  congregation  the  right 
of  judging  of  doctrine  and  of  humbly  correcting  the  preacher, 
should  he  err,  even  before  the  whole  assembly,  according 
to  the  Spirit  of  God  which  inspires  him.1 

Thus  he  had  relinquished  the  idea  of  proceeding  by  means 
of  the  assistance  of  the  Princes  and  nobles,  and  had  come  to 
place  all  his  hopes  in  the  fruitfulness  and  productive  power 
of  the  congregational  life. 

But  here  again  he  met  with  nothing  but  disappointment. 
It  was  not  encouraging  to  find,  that,  on  the  introduction  of 
the  new  teaching  and  in  the  struggle  against  alleged  formal- 
ism and  holiness-by-works,  what  Christian  spirit  previously 
existed  was  inclined  to  take  to  flight,  whilst  an  unevan- 
gelical  spirit  obtruded  itself  everywhere.  Hence  his  en- 
largement of  his  earlier  congregational  theory  by  the  scheme 
for  singling  out  the  faithful,  i.e.  the  true  Christians,  and 
forming  of  them  a  special  community. 

Just  as  his  belief  in  the  spontaneous  formation  of  a  new 
state  of  things  testified  to  his  abnormal  idealism,  so  this  new 
idea  of  an  assembly  within  the  congregation  displays  his 

1  Cp.  vol.  ii.,  p.  113. 


26  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

utter  lack  of  any  practical  spirit  of  organisation.  As  to  how 
far  this  perfecting  of  his  congregational  Churches  tended  to 
produce  a  sort  of  esoteric  Church,  will  be  discussed  else- 
where (vol.  v.,  xxix.,  8). 

As  his  starting-point  in  this  later  theory  he  took  the  pro- 
position, which  he  believed  could  be  reconciled  with  the  Gospel, 
viz.  that  the  Gospel  is  not  for  all ;  it  is  not  intended  for  the  "  hard- 
hearted "  who  "  do  not  accept  it  and  are  not  amenable  to  it," 
it  is  not  meant  for  "  open  sinners,  steeped  in  great  vices  ;  even 
though  they  may  listen  to  it  and  not  resist  it,  yet  it  does  not 
trouble  them  much  "  ;  still  less  is  it  for  those,  "  worst  of  all  men, 
who  go  so  far  as  to  persecute  the  Gospel."  "  These  three  classes 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Gospel,  nor  do  we  preach  to  such  as 
these  ;  I  only  wish  we  could  go  further  and  punish  them,  the  un- 
mannerly hogs,  who  prate  much  of  it  but  all  to  no  purpose,  as 
though  it  [the  Gospel]  were  a  romance  of  Dietrich  of  Bern,  or 
some  such-like  tale.  If  a  man  wants  to  be  a  pig,  let  him  think 
of  the  things  which  are  a  pig's.  Would  that  I  could  exclude  such 
men  from  the  sermons."1 

In  reality,  as  is  evident  from  passages  already  quoted  and  as 
Luther  here  again  goes  on  to  point  out,  the  Gospel  was  intended 
for  "  simple  "  consciences,  for  those  who,  "  though  they  may  at 
times  stumble,  are  displeased!  with  themselves,  feel  their  malady 
and  would  gladly  be  rid  of  it,  and  whose  hearts  are  therefore  not 
hardened.  These  must  be  stirred  up  and  drawn  to  Christ.  To 
none  other  than  these  have  we  ever  preached."  The  latter 
assertion  is  not,  of  course,  to  be  taken  quite  literally.  It  is, 
however,  correct  that  he  considered  only  the  true  believers  as  real 
members  of  the  Church,  for  these  alone,  viz.  for  people  who  had 
been  touched  by  the  Spirit  of  God  and  recognised  their  sins, 
was  his  preaching  intended.2    These  too  it  was  whom  he  desired 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  II2,  p.  245  f.  Church  Postils.  Sermon  for 
Easter  Monday,  published  in  1523.  Order  and  instruction  [how 
henceforward  the  sacrament  is  to  be  received].  Cp.  ibid.,  p.  197.  Cp. 
our  vol.  ii.,  p.  298,  where  Luther  says  :  "  Those  who  do  not  believe  do 
not  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  but  to  the  kingdom  of  the 
world." 

2  "  Troubled  consciences  "  alone  would  appreciate  the  consolation 
in  his  chief  doctrine,  viz.  that  of  Justification,  for  which  reason  Melanch- 
thon  in  the  apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  ("  Symbol.  Biicher  10," 
pp.  87,  90,  118,  120,  174)  is  fond  of  representing  Justification  by  faith 
alone  under  the  aspect  of  a  solace  and  consolation  amidst  the  terrors  of 
conscience  caused  by  the  consciousness  of  sin.  Whoever  had  not  ex- 
perienced such  fears  could  have  no  real  understanding  of  Justification. 
Such  a  view  of  Justification,  K.  Holl,  a  Protestant  theologian,  remarks 
had  its  value  while  it  was  still  a  question  of  winning  over  Catholics  to 
the  new  teaching,  since,  according  to  Luther,  the  Catholic  trust  in 
works  necessarily  led  to  "  despair."  But,  in  the  new  generation,  who 
had  grown  up  as  Lutherans,  "  consciences  were  already  comforted 
before  ever  they  experienced  any  terrors  "  ;  nor  did  Luther  make  it 
at  all  plain  how  often,  i.e.  whether  "  once  only  or  more  frequently," 
it  was  necessary   to   experience   the   consoling   power  of   the  Gospel 


CONGREGATIONALISM  27 

to  unite  if  possible  into  an  ordered  body.  Side  by  side  with  this 
he  saw  in  his  mind  the  great  congregational  Church,  termed  by 
him  the  "  masses  "  ;  this  Church  seemed,  however,  to  him,  less 
a  Church  than  a  field  for  missionary  labour,  for  its  members  were 
yet  to  be  converted.  The  idea  of  a  popular  Church  was,  never- 
theless, not  altogether  excluded  by  the  theory  of  the  separate 
Church  of  the  true  believers. 

More  particularly  at  Wittenberg  he  was  desirous  of  seeing 
this  segregation  of  the  "  Christians  "  carried  out,  quietly 
and  little  by  little.  He  prudently  abstained  from  exerting 
his  own  influence  for  its  realisation,  and  preferred  to  wait 
for  it  to  develop  spontaneously  "  under  the  Spirit  of  God." 
The  idea  was,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  far  too  vague.  He  also 
felt  that  neither  he  nor  the  others  possessed  the  necessary 
spiritual  authority  for  guiding  hearts  towards  this  goal,  for 
preserving  peace  within  the  newly  founded  communities,  or 
for  defending  them  against  the  hostile  elements  outside. 
As  for  his  favourite  comparison  of  his  theory  of  the  congrega- 
tion with  that  in  vogue  in  Apostolic  times,  it  was  one  which 
could  not  stand  examination.  His  congregations  lacked 
everything — the  moral  foundation,  the  Spirit  from  above, 
independent  spiritual  authority  and  able,  God-enlightened 
superiors  to  act  as  their  organs  and  centres. 

At  Leisnig  in  the  Saxon  Electorate  (cf.  vol.  ii.,  p.  113) 
an  attempt  to  call  an  ideal  evangelical  community  into 
existence  was  made  in  1523,  the  Church  property  being 
illegally  confiscated  by  the  magistrates  and  members  of  the 
parish,  and  the  ancient  right  of  the  neighbouring  Cistercian 
house  to  appoint  the  parish-priest  being  set  at  nought  by 
the  congregation  choosing  its  own  pastor  ;  here  the  inevit- 
able dissensions  at  once  broke  out  within  the  community  and 
the  whole  thing  was  a  failure.  The  internal  confusion  to 
which  the  congregation  would  be  exposed  through  the 
doctrine  of  private  illumination  and  "  apostolic  "  rights,  is 
clear  from  the  very  title  of  the  work  which  Luther  composed 
for  Leisnig  :  "  That  a  Christian  assembly  or  parish  has  the 
right  and  power  to  judge  of  doctrine  and  to  give  the  call  to, 
and  appoint  and  remove,  its  pastors,"  etc.1 

amidst  terrors  of  conscience  in  order  to  arrive  at  the  full  assurance  of 
Justification.  "  Die  Rechtfertigungslehre  im  Lichte  der  Gesch.  des 
Protestantismus,"  1906,  p.  14. 

1  "  Das  eyn  Christliche  Versamlung  odder  Gemeyne  .  .  .  Macht 
habe  alle  Lere  zu  urteylen."  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  11,  p.  401  fi\  ; 
Erf.  ed.,  22,  p.  140  ff. 


28  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

In  spite  of  the  evident  impracticability  of  the  scheme, 
the  phantom  of  the  congregational  Church  engrossed  the 
author  of  the  ecclesiastical  schism  for  about  ten  years.  Nor 
did  he  ever  cease  to  cherish  the  idea  of  the  Church  apart. 
It  was  this  idea  which  inspired  the  attacks  contained  in 
his  sermons  upon  the  multitude  of  lazy,  indolent  and  un- 
believing souls  to  whom  it  was  useless  to  preach  and  who, 
even  after  death,  were  only  fit  for  the  flaying-ground  because 
during  life  they  had  infected  the  invisible,  living  com- 
munity. He  is  heedless  of  what  must  result,  in  the  towns, 
villages  and  families,  from  any  division  into  Christians  and 
non- Christians,  nor  does  he  seem  to  notice  that  the  system 
of  the  Church  apart  could  only  produce  spiritual  pride, 
hypocrisy  and  all  the  errors  of  subjectivism  in  those  singled 
out  by  the  Spirit,  to  say  nothing  of  the  obstinacy  and 
wantonness  engendered  in  those  who  were  excluded. 

The  popular  Church,  of  which  it  was  necessary  to  make  the 
best,  owing  to  the  impracticability  of  the  Church  apart, 
apparently  embraced  all,  yet,  within  it,  according  to  Luther, 
the  true  believers  formed  an  invisible  Church,  and  this  in 
a  twofold  manner,  first,  because  they  were  themselves  not 
to  be  recognised,  and,  secondly,  because  the  Word  and 
the  Sacrament,  from  which  they  derived  their  religious  life, 
concealed  a  whole  treasure  of  invisible  forces. 

With  such  imperfect  elements  it  was,  however,  impossible 
to  establish  a  new  Church  system.  A  new  phase  was 
imminent,  towards  which  everything  was  gravitating  of  its 
own  accord  ;  this  was  the  State  Church,  i.e.  the  national 
Church  as  a  State  institution,  with  the  sovereign  at  its  head. 
The  various  congregational  churches  formed  a  visible  body 
frequently  impinging  on  the  outward,  civil  government,  and 
largely  dependent  on  the  support  of  the  authorities  ;  hence 
their  gradual  evolution  into  a  State  Church.  The  local  and 
national  character  of  the  new  system  paved  the  way  for  this 
development.  Luther,  whilst  at  the  bottom  of  his  heart 
anxious  to  check  it — for  his  ideal  was  an  independent 
Church — came,  under  pressure  of  circumstances,  to  cham- 
pion it  as  the  best  and  only  thing.  A  popular  Church 
or  State  Church  had  never  been  his  object,  yet  he  ultimately 
welcomed  the  State  Church  as  the  best  way  to  meet  diffi- 
culties ;  this  we  shall  see  more  clearly  further  on.  In  his 
efforts  to  overcome  the  apathy  of  the  masses  he  even  had 


THE  STATE  CHURCH  29 

recourse  to  compulsion  by  the  State,  inviting  the  authorities 
to  force  resistcrs  to  attend  Divine  Worship.1 

Luther  should  have  asked  himself  whether  the  moral 
grandeur  and  strength  which,  in  spite  of  its  favourable 
appearance,  the  congregational  Church  lacked,  would  be 
found  in  the  compulsory  State  Church.  This  question  he 
should  have  been  able  to  answer  in  the  negative.  It  was  a 
radical  misfortune  that  in  all  the  attempts  made  to  infuse 
life  into  the  branch  torn  away  by  Luther  from  the  universal 
Catholic  Church  the  secular  power  never  failed  to  interfere. 
The  State  had  stood  sponsor  to  the  new  faith  on  its  first 
appearance  and,  whether  in  Luther's  interest  or  in  its  own, 
the  State  continued  to  intervene  in  matters  pertaining  to 
the  Church.  This  interweaving  of  politics  with  religion 
failed  to  insure  to  the  new  Church  the  friendly  assistance 
of  the  State,  but  soon  brought  it  into  a  position  of  entire 
subservience — in  spite  of  the  protests  of  the  originator  of  the 
innovation. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  State  within  the  "  Church,"  in  the 
case  of  the  early  Lutheran  congregations,  did  not  amount  to 
any  actual  government  of  the  Church  by  the  sovereign. 
This,  in  the  appalling  form  it  was  to  assume,  was  a  result  of 
the  later  Consistories.  What,  with  Luther's  consent,  first 
passed  into  the  hands  of  the  secular  authorities  was  the 
jurisdiction  in  certain  external  matters  which,  according 
to  the  earlier  Canon  Law,  really  belonged  to  the  Bishop's 
court.  When  episcopal  authority  was  abolished  the  Elector 
of  Saxony  assumed  this  jurisdiction  as  a  sort  of  bishop 
faute-de-mieux,  or,  to  use  Melanchthon's  expression,  as  the 

1  We  have  indicated  in  the  above  our  own  position  with  respect  to 
two  opposing  views  recently  put  forward  concerning  the  development 
of  the  early  Lutheran  Church,  viz.  P.  Drews,  "  Entsprach  das  Staats- 
kirchentum  dem  Ideale  Luthers  ?  "  (see  above,  p.  24,  n.  4),  and  H. 
Hermelink,  "  Zu  Luthers  Gedanken  iiber  Idealgemeinden  und  von 
weltlicher  Obrigkeit,"  in  "  Zeitschr.  fur  KG.,"  29,  1908,  p.  267  ff., 
with  epilogue  on  Drews.  See  also  vol.  v.,  xxx.,  2,  on  State  and  State 
Church  according  to  Luther's  views  and  complaints.  While  Drews 
emphasises  the  "  congregations  of  true  believers  "  as  "  Luther's  ideal  " 
(p.  103),  Hermelink  lays  stress  on  the  fact  that  Luther  always  believed 
that  in  the  last  instance  the  Christian  authorities  would  be  forced  to 
introduce  and  see  to  the  uniformity  of  worship  in  their  lands.  The 
disagreement  on  so  vital  an  historical  question  only  emphasises  anew 
the  want  of  consistency  in  Luther  and  the  contradictions  contained 
in  his  statements.  See  vol.  ii.,  p.  112,  n.  1.  Cp.  p.  294  ff.,  and  the 
quotation  (from  W.  Hans)  :  "  The  contradictions  in  the  theory 
[Luther's]  and  between  his  theory  and  practice  can  never  be  explained." 


30  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

principal  member  of  the  Church  ("  membrum  prcecipuum 
ecclesice  "J.1  The  jurisdiction  in  question  concerned,  above 
all,  matrimonial  cases  which,  according  to  Luther,  belonged 
altogether  to  the  secular  courts,  matters  of  tithes,  certain 
offences  against  ecclesiastical  or  secular  law  and  points  of 
Church  discipline  affecting  public  order.  Luther  had 
declared  that  the  Church  possessed  no  power  to  govern, 
that  the  only  object  for  which  it  existed  was  to  make  men 
pious  by  means  of  the  Word,  that  the  secular  authority  was 
the  only  one  able  to  make  laws  and  formally  to  claim 
obedience  '*  whether  it  does  right  or  wrong."2  Hence 
the  State  in  assuming  jurisdiction  in  the  above  matters  was 
doing  nobody  any  injustice,  was  merely  exercising  its  right, 
whilst  the  authority  of  which  it  made  use  was  not  "  ecclesi- 
astical," but  merely  the  common  law  exercised  for  the 
purpose  of  preserving  "  sound  doctrine  "  and  the  "  true 
Church."3 

The  next  step  was  the  appointment  of  ecclesiastical  super- 
intendents by  the  sovereign  and,  either  through  these  or 
without  them,  the  nomination  of  pastors  by  the  State,  the 
removal  of  unqualified  teachers,  the  convening  of  ecclesi- 
astical synods  or  "  consultations,"  the  carrying  out  of 
Visitations  and  the  drawing  up  of  Church  regulations.  Here 
again  no  objection  on  the  point  of  principle  was  raised  by 
Luther,  partly  because  the  power  of  the  keys,  according  to 
him,  included  no  coercive  authority,  partly  because  the 
idea  of  the  "  membrum  prcecipuum  ecclesice  "  was  elastic 
enough  to  permit  of  such  encroachments  on  the  part  of  the 
ruler.4  In  the  Protestant  Canon  Law,  compiled  by  R.  Sohm, 
all  the  above  is  described,  under  appeal  to  Luther,  as  coming 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State,  the  Church  being  "  with- 

1  Cp.  Melanchthon's  tract  "  De  potestate  papas "  added  to  the 
Schmalkalden  Articles  in  "  Die  symbolischen  Bucher,"  10  1907,  ed. 
Miiller-Kolde,  p.  339  :  "  Imprimis  autem  oportet  prcecipua  membra 
ecclesice,  reges  et  principes,  consulere  ecclesice.  .  .  .  Prima  enim  cura 
regum  esse  debet,  ut  ornent  gloriam  Dei"  Above  all,  he  says,  referring 
to  the  Papacy,  they  must  not  make  use  of  their  power  "  ad  confirman- 
dam  idolatriam  et  cetera  infinita  flagitia  et  ad  faciendas  ccedes  sanctorum" 

2  R.  Sohm,  "  Kirchenrecht,"  1,  1892,  p.  561,  who  appeals  to  passages 
in  Luther's  "  Von  guten  Wercken,"  1520,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6, 
p.  259  ft  ;   Erl.  ed.,  162,  p.  198  f.    Cp.  our  vol.  ii.,  p.  299. 

3  Sohm,  ibid.,  p.  579. 

4  Melanchthon  even  describes  it  as  the  first  duty  of  the  principal 
member  of  the  Church  :  "  curare,  ut  error es  tollantur  et  conscientice 
sanentur."     "  Symbolische  Bucher,"  ibid. 


THE   STATE  CHURCH  31 

out  jurisdiction  in  the  legal  sense  "  and  its  business  being 
"  merely  the  ministry  of  the  Word."1 

The  introduction  of  the  Consistories  in  1539  was  a  result 
of  the  idea  expressed  by  Justus  Jonas  in  his  memorandum, 
viz.  that  if  the  Church  possesses  no  legal  power  of  coercion 
for  the  maintenance  of  order,  she  is  fatally  doomed  to 
perish.  To  many  the  growing  corruption  made  an  imitation 
of  "  episcopal  jurisdiction  in  the  Catholic  style,"  such  as 
Melanchthon  desiderated,  appear  a  real  need.2  In  the  event 
the  advice  of  Jonas  was  followed,  jurisdiction  being  con- 
ferred on  the  Consistories  directly  by  the  ruler  of  the  land. 
After  a  little  hesitation  Luther  gave  his  sanction  to  the  new 
institution,  seeing  that,  though  appointed  by  the  sovereign, 
it  was  a  mere  spiritual  tribunal  of  the  Church.  The  Con- 
sistories, more  particularly  after  his  death,  though  retaining 
the  name  of  ecclesiastical  courts  gradually  became  a  depart- 
ment of  the  civil  judicature,  a  good  expression  of  the 
complete  subservience  of  Church  to  State. 

"  The  setting  up  of  the  civil  government  of  the  Church  was 
achieved,"  remarks  Sohm,  by  an  arrangement  really  "  in  entire 
opposition  to  the  ideas  of  the  Reformation."3 

"  The  lack  of  system  in  Luther's  mode  of  thought  is  perhaps 
nowhere  so  apparent  as  in  his  views  on  the  authorities  and  their 
demeanour  towards  religion."4  The  want  of  unity  and  sequence 
in  his  teaching  becomes  even  more  apparent  when  we  listen  to 
the  very  diverse  opinions  of  Protestant  scholars  on  the  subject. 
It  is  no  fault  of  the  historian's  if  the  picture  presented  by  the 
statements  of  Luther  and  his  commentators  shows  very  blurred 
outlines. 

"  The  civil  government  of  the  Church,"  writes  Heinrich 
Bohmer,  in  ' '  Luther  im  Lichte  der  neueren  Forschung ' ' — 
speaking  from  his  own  standpoint — "  in  so  far  as  it  actually 
represents  a  '  government,'  is  utterly  at  variance  with  Luther's 
own  principles  in  matters  of  religion.  Neither  can  it  be  brought 
into  direct  historical  connection  with  the  Reformation.  .  .  . 
The  so-called  congregational  principle  is  really  the  only  one 
which  agrees  with  Luther's  religious  ideal,  according  to  which 
the  decision  upon  all  ecclesiastical  matters  is  to  be  regarded  as 
the  right  of  each  individual  congregation.  ...  It  is,  however, 
perfectly  true  that  the  attempts  to  reorganise  the  ecclesiastical 

1  Sohm,  "Kirchenrecht,"  ],  1892,  p.  579. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  615,  where  the  passages  from  Jonas's  writings  are  given. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  630,  618  ;  for  further  details  on  the  Consistories  and 
Luther's  relations  to  them,  see  our  vol.  v.,  xxx.,  3  ;    cp.  xxxv.,  2. 

4  Wilhelm  Hans,  a  Protestant  theologian,  quoted  in  our  vol.  ii., 
p.  312. 


32  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

constitution  on  the  basis  of  this  idea  were  a  complete  failure. 
Neither  at  Wittenberg,  nor  at  Allstedt,  nor  at  Orlamiinde  were 
the  communities  from  a  moral  point  of  view  sufficiently  ripe."1 

The  civil  government  of  the  Church  is  also  in  disagreement 
with  Luther's  conception  of  the  secular  power  as  expressed  in 
some  chief  passages  of  his  work  "  Von  welltlicher  Uberkeytt," 
(1523).  According  to  Erich  Brandenburg's  concise  summary, 
Luther  shows  in  this  work,  that  "  the  task  of  the  State  and  of 
society  is  entirely  secular  ;  it  is  not  their  duty  to  make  men 
pious.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  Christian  State  ;  society  and 
the  State  were  called  into  being  by  God  on  account  of  the  wicked." 2 
Brandenburg  also  quotes  later  statements  made  by  Luther 
concerning  the  secular  authorities,  and  infers,  "  that  neither  the 
civil  government  of  the  Church  in  the  sense  accepted  at  a  later 
date,  nor  the  quasi-episcopate  of  the  sovereign,  is  really  com- 
patible with  such  views."3 

It  is  true  that  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  John 
(1537-1538),  in  his  annoyance  at  his  unfortunate  experiences  of 
State  encroachments,  Luther  declares,  that  "  the  two  govern- 
ments should  not  be  intermingled  to  the  end  of  the  world,  as 
was  the  case  with  the  Jewish  nation  in  Old  Testament  times,  but 
must  remain  divided  and  apart,  in  order  that  the  pure  Gospel 
and  the  true  faith  may  be  preserved,  for  the  Kingdom  of  Christ 
and  the  secular  government  are  two  very  different  things."4 
He  realises,  however,  the  futility  of  his  exhortations  :  "  You 
will  see  that  the  devil  will  mingle  them  together  again  .  .  .  the 
sword  of  the  Spirit  and  the  secular  sword.  .  .  .  Our  squires,  the 
nobles  and  the  Princes,  who  now  go  about  equipped  with  authority 
and  desire  to  teach  the  preachers  what  they  are  to  preach  and  to 
force  the  people  to  the  sacrament  according  to  their  pleasure, 
will  cause  us  much  injury  ;  for  it  is  necessary  '  to  render  obedience 
to  the  worldly  authorities,'  hence  '  what  we  wish,  that  you  must 
do,'  and  thus  the  secular  and  spiritual  government  becomes  a 
single  establishment . "  6 

Brandenburg,  for  his  part,  is  of  opinion  that  "  the  civil  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  had  come  about  in  opposition  to  Luther's 
wishes,  but  had  to  be  endured  like  other  forms  of  injustice.  .  .  . 
Luther  reproached  himself  with  strengthening  the  tyrants  by  his 
preaching,  with  throwing  open  doors  and  windows  to  them. 
But  with  the  unworldly  idealism  peculiar  to  him,  he  thereupon 
replied  defiantly  :  '  What  do  I  care  ?  If,  on  account  of  the 
tyrants,  we  are  to  omit  the  teaching  which  is  so  essential  a 

1  First  edition,  p.  127.  In  the  second  edition  the  passage  com- 
mencing with  the  words  "  The  so-called  "  has  been  altered. 

2  "  Luthers  Anschauung  vom  Staate  und  der  Gesellschaft "  ("Schrif- 
ten  des  Vereins  fur  Reformationsgesch."),  1901,  p.  25.  Elsewhere 
Luther  speaks  otherwise.  We  must  remember  that  in  the  above 
writing  he  has  in  mind  chiefly  the  Catholic  authorities  who  were  oppos- 
ing the  new  Evangel. 

3  Ibid.  4  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  46,  p.  183. 
«  Ibid.,  p.  185. 


SEIZURE    OF  CHURCH  PROPERTY    33 

matter,  then  we  should  have  been  forced  long  since  to  relinquish 
the  whole  Evangel.'  "* 

On  the  other  hand  another  Protestant  theologian,  H.  Hermelink, 
who  supports  the  opposite  view,  viz.  that  Luther  was  a  staunch 
upholder  of  the  supremacy  of  the  authorities  in  matters  ecclesi- 
astic, adduces  plentiful  quotations  from  Luther's  writings  in 
which  the  latter,  even  from  the  early  days  of  his  struggle,  declares 
that  the  authorities  have  their  say  in  spiritual  matters,  that  it  is 
their  duty  to  provide  for  uniformity  of  teaching  in  each  locality 
and  to  supervise  Christian  worship.  He  admits,  however,  that 
Luther  set  certain  "  bounds  to  the  ecclesiastical  rights  of  the 
authorities."2 

These  statements  in  favour  of  the  authorities  cannot  be  dis- 
allowed. They  arose  partly  from  Luther's  efforts  to  advance  his 
party  with  the  help  of  the  worldly  magnates,  partly,  as  will 
appear  immediately,  from  the  material  difficulties  of  the  Lutheran 
congregations,  due  to  the  confiscation  of  Church  property  by  the 
secular  power. 

In  any  case  it  was  unexpectedly  that  Luther  found  himself 
confronted  with  all  the  above  problems.  When  their  immediate 
solution  became  the  most  urgent  task  for  the  new  faith,  Luther's 
principles  were  still  far  from  presenting  any  well-defined  line  of 
action.  "  To  these,  and  similar  questions,"  remarks  Wilhelm 
Maurenbrecher,  the  Protestant  historian  of  the  Reformation, 
"  Luther  had  given  no  sufficient  answer  ;  it  would  even  seem  as 
though  he  had  not  considered  them  at  all  carefully."  Among 
the  questions  was,  according  to  Maurenbrecher,  the  funda- 
mental one  :  "  Who  is  to  decide  whether  this  or  that  person 
belongs  to  the  congregation  ?  "  If  the  congregation,  where  does 
the  Church  come  in  ?  for,  "  after  all,  the  congregation  is  not  the 
Church."3  The  very  idea  of  the  Church  had  still  to  be  deter- 
mined. * 

Confiscation  of  Church  Property. 

In  the  Saxon  Electorate,  the  home  of  the  religious  innova- 
tion, it  had  become  imperatively  necessary  that  the  parishes 
which  sided  with  Luther  should  be  set  in  order  by  a  strong 
hand,  first,  and  principally,  in  the  matter  of  the  use  to  which 
the  Church  lands  were  to  be  put.  In  these  territories,  where 
the  civil  government  of  the  Church  first  obtained,  it  arose 
through  the  robbing  and  plundering  of  the  churches. 

"  The  parsonages  all  over  the  country  lie  desolate,"  Luther 

1  Brandenburg,  p.  24,  from  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  39,  p.  257.  Com- 
mentary on  Psalm  lxxxii. 

2  Zeitschr.  fur  KG.,"  29,  1908,  p.  2G7  ff.,  479  ff. 

3  "  Studien  und  Skizzen  zur  Gesch.  der  Reformationszeit,"  1874, 
p.  344  f. 

4  On  the  development  of  Luther's  idea  of  the  Church,  see  vol.  vi., 
xxxviii.,  3  and  4.  On  the  shaping  of  the  relations  between  Church  and 
State  by  Luther,  see  vol.  v.,  xxxv.,  2. 

III. — D 


34  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

wrote  to  the  Elector  Johann  of  Saxony  on  October  31,  1525, 
"  no  one  gives  anything,  or  pays  anything.  .  .  .  The 
common  people  pay  no  attention  to  cither  preacher  or 
parson,  so  that  unless  some  bold  step  be  taken  and  the 
pastors  and  preachers  receive  State  aid  from  your  Electoral 
Highness,  there  will  shortly  be  neither  parsonages,  nor 
schools,  nor  scholars,  so  that  the  Word  of  God  and  His 
worship  will  perish.  Your  Electoral  Highness  must  there- 
fore continue  to  devote  yourself  to  God's  service  and  act  as 
His  faithful  tool."1 

Not  long  afterwards  Luther  strongly  advises  the  Elector 
not  only  to  see  to  the  material  condition  of  the  parsonages, 
but  also  to  examine  by  means  of  visitors  the  fitness  of  the 
parsons  for  their  office,  "  in  order  that  the  people  may  be  well 
served  in  the  Evangel  and  may  contribute  to  his  [the 
parson's]  support."2 

The  Order  for  Visitations  (1527),  which  Luther  looked 
over  and  which  practically  had  his  approval,  was  intended 
in  the  first  place  to  better  financially  the  condition  of  the 
parishes.  Hand  in  hand  with  this,  however,  went  super- 
vision of  the  preaching  by  the  State  and  the  repression  by 
force  of  whatever  Catholic  elements  still  survived.3  The 
Electoral  Visitors  here  and  there  found  the  utmost  indiffer- 
ence towards  the  new  faith  prevailing  among  the  people, 
whose  interests  were  all  material.  They  finally  proposed 
that  the  Elector  should  provide  for  the  support  of  the 
parsons  and  assume  the  right  of  appointing  and  removing 
all  the  clergy. 

Luther  himself  had  written  as  early  as  1526  :  "  The  com- 
plaints of  the  parsons  almost  everywhere  are  beyond  measure 
great.  The  peasants  refuse  to  give  anything  at  all,  and  there  is 
such  ingratitude  amongst  the  people  for  the  Holy  Word  of  God 
that  there  can  be  no  doubt  a  great  judgment  of  God  is  imminent. 
...  It  is  the  fault  of  the  authorities  that  the  young  receive  no 
education  and  that  the  land  is  filled  with  wild,  dissolute  folk,  so 
that  not  only  God's  command  but  our  common  distress  compel 
us  to  take  some  measures."4 

"  Common  distress  "  was,  in  point  of  fact,  compelling  recourse 

1  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  331  ("  Brief wechsel,"  5,  p.  259). 

2  On  November  30,  1525,  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  337  ("Brief- 
wechsel,"  5,  p.  277  ff.). 

3  C.  A.  Burkhardt,  "Gesch.  der  sachsischen  Kirchen-  und  Schul- 
visitation  von  1524  bis  1545,"  1879,  p.  16. 

4  To  Johann,  Elector  of  Saxony,  November  22,  1526,  "  Werke," 
Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  386    "  Briefwechsel,"  5,  p.  406). 


SEIZURE   OF  CHURCH  PROPERTY   35 

to  the  authorities  who  had  confiscated  the  property  of  the  Church  ; 
i.e.  the  heads  of  the  various  parishes  or  the  Electoral  Court. 
The  magistrates  had  laid  hands  upon  the  smaller  benefices, 
which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  were  for  the  most  part  in  their  own 
gift  or  in  that  of  the  families  of  distinction,  whilst  in  case  of 
dispute  the  Elector  himself  had  intervened.  The  best  of  the 
plunder  naturally  went  to  the  Ruler  of  the  land. 

Luther  addressed  the  Elector  as  follows  :  "  Now  that  an  end 
has  been  made  of  the  Papal  and  ecclesiastical  tyranny  throughout 
your  Highness's  dominions,  and  now  that  all  the  religious  houses 
and  endowments  have  come  into  the  power  of  your  Electoral 
Highness  as  the  supreme  head,  this  involves  the  duty  and  burden 
of  setting  this  matter  in  order,  since  no  one  else  has  taken  it  up, 
nor  has  a  right  to  do  so." * — Nor  was  Luther  backward  in  pointing 
out  to  the  Court,  when  obliged  to  complain  of  the  meagre  support 
accorded  to  the  churches,  the  great  service  he  had  done  in  en- 
riching it :  "  Has  the  Prince  ever  suffered  any  loss  through  us  ?  " 
he  asks  a  person  of  influence  with  the  Elector  in  1520.  "  Have 
we  not,  on  the  contrary,  brought  him  much  gain  ?  Can  it  be 
considered  an  insignificant  matter,  that  not  only  your  souls  have 
been  saved  by  the  Evangel,  but  that  also  considerable  wealth, 
in  the  shape  of  property,  has  begun  to  flow  into  the  Prince's 
coffers,  a  source  of  revenue  which  is  still  daily  on  the  increase  ?  "2 

The  appropriation  of  property  by  the  Elector  as  Ruler  of  the 
land  necessarily  entailed  far-reaching  obligations  with  regard  to 
the  churches. 

Hence,  when,  on  November  22,  1526,  Luther  represented  to 
the  sovereign  the  financial  distress  of  the  pastors,  he  also  told 
him,  that  a  just  ruler  ought  to  prevail  upon  his  subjects  to 
support  the  schools,  pulpits  and  parsonages. 3  Johann,  in  his  reply, 
when  agreeing  to  intervene  for  the  better  ordering  of  the  churches, 
likewise  appeals  to  his  rights  as  sovereign  of  the  country  : 
"  Because  we  judge,  and  are  of  opinion,  that  it  beseems  us  as 
Ruler  to  attend  to  them."4 

Luther's  invitation  to  the  Princes  to  effect  by  force  a  reforma- 
tion of  the  ecclesiastical  order  had  already  thrown  wide  open  the 
doors  to  princely  aggression. 

"  The  secular  power,"  Luther  had  said,  "  has  become  a  member 
of  the  Christian  body,  and  though  its  work  is  of  the  body,  yet  it 
belongs  to  the  spiritual  estate.  Therefore  its  work  shall  go 
forward  without  let  or  hindrance  amongst  all  the  members  of  the 
whole  body."  The  Christian  secular  authority  shall  exercise  its 
office  in  all  freedom,  if  necessary  even  against  Pope,  bishop  and 
priest,  for  ecclesiastical  law  is  nothing  but  a  fond  invention  of 
Roman  presumption.5 

1  To  the  Elector  Johann  in  the  letter  quoted  above. 

2  To  Spalatin,  on  March  19,  1520  ("  Brief wechsel,"  2,  p.  263). 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  386  ("  Brief  wechsel,"  5,  p.  406). 

4  Burkhardt,  "  Luthers  Brief  wechsel,"  p.  114. 

5  In  the  work  "An  den  christlichen  Adel"  of  1520,  "Werke," 
Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  409  ;   Erl.  ed.,  21,  p.  285.    Cp.  our  vol.  ii.,  p.  296. 


36  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

If  it  was  the  duty  of  the  rulers  to  intervene  on  behalf  of  the 
general  public  needs  of  Christendom,  how  much  more  were  they 
bound  to  provide  for  the  proper  standing  and  pure  doctrine  of 
the  pastors.  It  is  they  who  must  assist  in  bringing  about  a 
"  real,  free  Council,"  since  the  Pope,  whose  duty  it  was  to  convene 
it,  neglected  to  do  so  ;  "  this  no  one  can  do  so  effectively  as  the 
secular  powers,  particularly  now  that  they  have  become  fellow- 
Christians,  fellow-priests  and  fellow-clergymen,  sharing  our 
power  in  all  things  ;  their  office  and  work,  which  they  have 
from  Cod  over  all  men,  must  be  allowed  free  course  wherever 
needful  and  wholesome."1 

Luther  was  wide-awake  to  the  fact,  and  reckoned  upon  it, 
that  the  gain  to  be  derived  from  the  rich  ecclesiastical 
property  would  act  as  a  powerful  incentive  with  those  in 
power  to  induce  them  to  open  their  lands  to  the  innovations. 
What  ruler  would  not  be  tempted  by  the  prospect  of 
coming  so  easily  into  possession  of  the  Church's  wealth, 
that  fabulous  patrimony  accumulated  from  the  gifts 
previous  ages  had  made  on  behalf  of  the  poor,  of  the  service 
of  the  altar,  of  the  clergy  and  the  churches  ?  They  heard 
Luther  declare  that  he  was  going  to  tear  Catholic  hearts 
away  from  "  monasteries  and  clerical  mummery  "  ;  they 
also  heard  him  add  :  "  When  they  are  gone  and  the  churches 
and  convents  lie  desolate  and  forsaken,  then  the  rulers  of 
the  land  may  do  with  them  what  they  please.  WThat  care 
we  for  wood  and  stone  if  once  we  have  captured  the  hearts  ?  " 2 
The  taking  over  of  the  Church  property  by  the  rulers  was, 
according  to  him,  simply  the  just  and  natural  result  of  the 
preaching  of  the  Evangel.  This  was  the  light  in  which  he 
wished  the  very  unspiritual  procedure  of  confiscation  to  be 
regarded. 

He  frequently  insisted  very  urgently  that  the  nobles  and 
unauthorised  laymen  were  not  to  seize  upon  the  church 
buildings,  revenues  and  real  property.  He  was  aware  of  the 
danger  of  countenancing  private  interference,  and  preferred 
to  see  the  expropriation  carried  out  by  the  power  of  the 
State  and  according  to  law.  In  this  wise  he  hoped  that  the 
property  seized  might  still,  to  some  extent,  be  employed  in 
accordance  with  its  original  purpose,  though,  as  was  inevit- 
able, he  was  greatly  disappointed  in  this  hope.    It  is  spiritual 

1  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  413  =  290. 

2  To  the  Elector  Frederick  and  Duke  Johann  of  Saxony,  July,  1524, 
"  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  255  ("  Brief wechsel,"  4,  p.  372). 


SEIZURE  OF  CHURCH  PROPERTY    37 

property,  he  repeats  frequently,  bestowed  for  a  spiritual  pur- 
pose, and  therefore,  even  after  the  departure  of  its  former  oc- 
cupant, it  must  be  used  for  the  salvation  of  souls  in  accordance 
with  the  Evangel.  To  the  Elector  Johann,  for  instance,  he 
writes  :  The  parsonages  must  be  repaired  out  of  the  revenues 
of  the  monasteries,  "  because  such  property  cannot  profit 
your  Electoral  Highness's  Exchequer,  for  it  was  dedicated 
to  God's  service  and  therefore  must  be  devoted  primarily 
to  this  object.  Whatever  is  left  after  this,  your  Electoral 
Highness  may  make  use  of  for  the  needs  of  the  land,  or  for 
the  poor."1 

His  demands  were,  however,  very  inadequately  complied 
with.  If  Luther  really  anticipated  their  fulfilment,  he  was 
certainly  very  ignorant  of  the  ways  of  the  world.  Who  was 
to  prevent  the  Princes  from  seizing  upon  the  Church  lands 
with  greedy  hands  so  soon  as  they  stood  vacant,  and  employ- 
ing them  for  their  own  purposes,  or  to  enrich  the  nobles  ? 
Even  where  everything  was  done  in  an  orderly  manner,  who 
could  prevent  ever-impecunious  Sovereigns  from  making 
use  of  the  revenues  for  State  purposes  and  from  allotting 
the  first  place  among  the  "  needs  of  the  land  "  of  which  we 
just  heard  Luther  speak,  to  their  own  everyday  require- 
ments ? 

Luther's  subsequent  experiences  drew  from  him  such  words 
as  the  following  :  "  This  robbing  of  the  monasteries  " — he  wrote 
to  Spalatin,  who  was  still  connected  with  the  Court  of  the  new 
Elector  Johann  (since  1525),  concerning  the  condition  of  things  in 
the  Saxon  Electorate — "  is  a  very  serious  matter,  which  worries 
me  greatly.  I  have  set  my  face  against  it  for  a  long  while  past. 
Not  content  with  this,  when  the  Prince  was  stopping  here  I 
actually  forced  my  way  into  his  chamber,  in  spite  of  the  resistance 
I  met  with,  in  order  to  make  representations  to  him  privately." 
He  goes  on  to  complain  that  there  was  little  hope  of  redress  so 
long  as  certain  selfish  intrigues  were  being  carried  on  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  sovereign.  Indeed,  he  does  not  anticipate  much 
help  from  this  Elector  Johann,  because  lie  lacks  his  father's 
firmness,  and  is  much  too  ready  to  listen  to  anyone.  "  A  Prince 
must  know  how  to  be  angry,  a  King  must  be  something  of  a 
tyrant  ;  this  the  world  demands."  As  things  are,  however,  we 
are  imposed  upon  in  all  sorts  of  ways  for  "  the  sake  of  the  spoils  "  ; 
"  smoke,  fumes  and  fables  "  are  made  to  serve,  and  we  do  not 
even  know  who  are  at  work  behind  the  scenes  ;  at  any  rate  they  are 
hostile  to  the  Evangel  and  were  its  foes  even  in  the  time  of  the 

1  To  the  Elector  Johann,  November  22,  152G,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed., 
53,  p.  386  f.  ("  Brief wechsel,"  5,  p.  40G). 


38  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

pious  Elector.  "  Now  that  they  have  enriched  themselves,  they 
laugh  and  exult  over  the  fact  that  it  is  possible  in  the  name  of 
the  Evangel  to  enjoy  all  sorts  of  evangelical  freedom,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  be  the  Evangel's  worst  enemy.  This  is  bitter  to  me, 
more  bitter  than  gall."  "  I  shall  have  to  issue  a  public  admonition 
to  the  Prince  in  order  to  insist  upon  some  other  administration 
of  the  religious  houses  ;  perhaps  then  I  shall  be  able  to  shame 
those  fellows.  ...  I  hate  Satan's  rage,  malice  and  ambushes, 
everywhere,  in  all  matters,  and  unceasingly,  and  it  gives  me 
pleasure  to  thwart  him  and  injure  him  wherever  I  can."1 

Thus  the  consequences  were  more  serious  than  the  ex-monk 
in  his  ignorance  of  the  ways  of  the  world  had  anticipated. 
"  Satan,"  on  whose  shoulders  he  lays  the  blame,  was  not  to  be 
so  easily  expelled.  The  worst  acts  of  violence  perpetrated  in 
the  name  of  the  Word  of  God  were  the  result  of  the  lust  for 
wealth  which  he  had  unchained. 

"  How  heavily  the  negligence  of  our  Court  presses  upon  me," 
he  sighs  in  the  last  years  of  his  life.  Much  is  undertaken  pre- 
sumptuously, and  then,  after  a  while,  we  are  left  stranded  in  the 
mire  ;  they  do  nothing  themselves,  and  we  are  left  to  our  fate. 
But  I  intend  to  pour  my  grievous  complaints  into  the  ears  of 
Dr.  Pontanus  and  the  Prince  himself  as  soon  as  I  get  a  chance. 
I  have  learnt,  to  my  great  annoyance,  that  the  nobles  are  govern- 
ing in  the  Prince's  name. 2 

A  few  days  after  the  letter  to  Spalatin,  quoted  above,  in 
another  letter  to  him,  he  gives  vent  to  his  thoughts  on  the 
marriage  questions  arising  within  the  domain  of  the  new  faith. 

Secularisation  of  the  Matrimonial  Courts. 
Against  the  Lawyers. 

The  secularisation  of  the  marriage  courts  appears  as  a 
very  characteristic  subject  amongst  the  questions  of  juris- 
diction arising  between  State  and  Church,  side  by  side  with 
the  secularisation  of  Church  property.  The  secularising 
of  these  courts  was  the  logical  consequence  of  Luther's 
secularising  of  matrimony,  which  he  regarded— to  fore- 
stall his  later  statements3 — "  as  an  outward,  secular  matter, 
subject  to  the  authorities,  like  food  and  clothing,  house  and 

1  To  Spalatin  at  Altenburg,  January  1,  1527,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  6, 
p.  2  ft'.  Spalatin  had  resigned  the  Court  Chaplaincy  on  the  death 
of  the  Elector  Frederick  and  become  pastor  of  Altenburg.  From  this 
time  Luther's  letters  to  him  assume  a  different  character,  the  con- 
sideration for  the  Court  and  the  desire  to  work  on  it  through  Spalatin 
being  no  longer  apparent.    Cp.  our  vol.  ii.,  p.  23. 

2  To  Amsdorf,  January  13,  1543,  "  Brief e,"  cd.  Do  Wctte,  5, 
p.  532. 

3  See  below,  xvii.,  5,  and  vol.  iv.,  xxii.,  5. 


MARRIAGE  QUESTIONS  39 

land."1  According  to  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  at  the  very 
most  it  was  a  sacrament  only  in  the  same  way  that  the 
authority  of  the  magistrates  appointed  by  God  was  a 
sacrament.2  The  codicil  to  the  Articles  of  Schmalkaldcn 
required,  that  the  "  magistrates  shall  establish  special 
marriage  courts,"  because  Canon  Law  "  contains  pitfalls 
for  conscience."3 

As  the  Church  had  formerly  been  the  sole  authority  on 
questions  relating  to  marriage,  and  as  the  custom  of  re- 
ferring such  matters  to  her  was  deeply  rooted  in  the  life  of 
the  German  people,  Luther  at  the  outset  consented  to  take 
this  into  account  and  to  leave  the  decision  to  his  preachers  ; 
the  result  of  this  was,  however,  that  he  found  himself  over- 
whelmed amidst  his  other  labours  by  a  mass  of  unpleasant 
and  uncongenial  work  and  was  accordingly  soon  moved  to 
throw  the  whole  burden  on  the  State  and  the  secular 
lawyers,  though  here  again  he  met  with  distressing  experi- 
ences. 

He  wrote  to  Spalatin  in  1527  :  "  We  have  been  plagued 
by  so  many  questions  concerning  marriage,  owing  to  the 
connivance  of  the  devil,  that  we  have  decided  to  leave  this 
profane  business  to  the  profane  courts.  Formerly  I  was 
stupid  enough  to  expect  from  mankind  something  more 
than  mere  humanity,  and  to  fancy  that  they  could  be 
directed  by  the  Evangel.  Now,  facts  have  shown  that  they 
despise  the  Evangel  and  insist  on  being  compelled  by  the 
law  and  the  sword."  He  shows  himself  very  much  annoyed 
in  this  letter  at  the  position  taken  up  by  the  jurists  with 
their  "  law  "  concerning  those  marriages  which  took  place 
contrary  to  the  will  of  the  parents.  The  lawyers  of  the 
Wittenberg  Faculty  agreed  with  the  older  Church  in 
recognising  the  validity  of  such  unions.  Luther,  on  the 
other  hand,  ostensibly  on  biblical  grounds,  wished  them  to 
be  held  as  null,  because  duty  to  the  public  and  the  respect 
due  to  parents  required  it.  In  practice,  however,  he  soon 
became  aware  how  precarious  was  this  position.  "  The 
Gospel  teaches,"  he  explains  to  Spalatin,  "  that  the  father 
must  be  ready  to  give  his  consent  when  his  son  asks  what  is 
lawful,  and  that  the  son  must  obey  his  father  ;    on  both 

i  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  3,  p.  205  ;    Erl.  cd.,  23,  p.  93.     "  Von 
Ehosachen,"  1530. 

2  "Symbol.  Biicher/'  10  ed.  Midler- Kolde,  p.  204,  art.  13. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  343. 


40  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

sides  there  must  be  good- will ;  this  holds  good  with  the 
pious.  But  when  godless  parents  hear  that  the  Gospel 
confirms  their  authority,  they  become  tyrannical  [and 
refuse  to  consent  to  their  children's  marriage].  The  children, 
on  the  other  hand,  learn  that,  according  to  the  law  of  Pope 
and  Emperor,  they  have  the  necessary  permission,  and  so 
they  abuse  this  liberty  and  despise  their  parents.  Both 
sides  are-  in  the  wrong  and  numerous  examples  of  the  same 
abound."1 

In  the  case  of  such  dissensions  between  parents  and 
children,  he  says  in  an  instruction  to  Spalatin  which  was 
printed  later,  the  son  "  must  be  sent  to  the  profane,  i.e. 
Imperial  Courts  of  Justice,  under  which  we  live  in  the  flesh, 
and  thus  you  will  be  relieved  of  the  burden."  Preachers, 
according  to  him,  as  "  evangelists,"  have  nothing  to  do  with 
legal  questions,  but  merely  with  peaceable  matters  ;  "  where 
there  is  strife  and  dissension  the  Kaiser's  tribunal  [the 
secular  courts]  must  decide.  .  .  .  Should  the  son  get  no 
redress  from  the  secular  court,  then  there  is  nothing  for  him 
but  to  submit  to  his  father's  tyranny."2 

Naturally  neither  Luther  nor  the  parties  concerned  found 
much  satisfaction  in  such  expedients.  The  handing  over  of 
the  marriage  questions  to  the  State  was  to  prove  a  source  of 
endless  and  increasing  trouble  and  vexation  to  Luther  in  the 
ensuing  years,  particularly  in  connection  with  the  "  secret  " 
marriages  just  referred  to.  Luther  even  appealed  from  the 
then  practice  of  the  lawyers  to  the  law  of  the  old  Roman 
Empire,  which  exaggerated  the  paternal  rights  to  the  extent 
of  making  the  children's  marriages  altogether  dependent  on 
the  will  of  the  parents.  In  the  letter  to  Spalatin,  printed  in 
the  Wittenberg  edition  of  Luther's  German  works,  we  find 
the  following  marginal  note  which  expresses  Luther's 
opinion  :  "  The  old  Imperial  and  Christian  laws  decree  and 
ordain  that  children  shall  marry  with  the  knowledge,  consent 
and  advice  of  their  parents,  and  this  the  natural  law  also 
teaches.  But  the  Pope,  like  the  tyrant  and  Antichrist  he 
is,  has  determined  to  be  the  only  judge  in  questions  of 
marriage  and  has  abolished  the  obedience  due  by  children 
to  their  parents."3    The  truth  is,  that  Canon  Law,  whilst 

1  On  January  7,  1527,  "  Brief wechsel,"  6,  p.  6.       2  Ibid.,  pp.  6,  7. 
3  "  Werke,"   Wittenberg  ed.,    9,   p.    244.      Enders,    "  Briefwechsel 
Luthers,"  6,  p.  8,  n.  1. 


MARRIAGE  QUESTIONS  41 

strongly  urging  both  sons  and  daughters  to  obey  and  respect 
their  parents,  nevertheless  recognised  as  valid  a  marriage 
contract  when  concluded  under  conditions  otherwise  lawful, 
and  this  because  it  saw  no  reason  for  depriving  the  contract- 
ing parties  of  the  freedom  which  was  theirs  by  the  natural  law. 

Luther,  greatly  incensed  by  the  opposition  of  the  lawyers, 
at  length,  in  a  sermon  preached  in  1544,  launched  forth  the 
most  solemn  condemnation  possible  of  the  so-called  secret 
unions  contracted  without  the  paternal  consent.  He 
declared  :  "I,  Dr.  Martinus,  command  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  our  God,  that  no  one  shall  enter  into  a  secret  engage- 
ment and  then,  after  the  event,  seek  the  parents'  ratification 
.  .  .  and,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost, 
I  condemn  to  the  abyss  of  hell  all  those  who  assist  in  further- 
ing such  devil's  work  as  secret  engagements.    Amen."1 

In  the  same  way  he  boasted  to  the  Elector,  that  the 
jurists  had  "  wanted  to  play  havoc  "  with  his  churches 
"  with  their  annoying,  damnable  suits  which,  however,  I 
have  resolved  to  expel  from  my  churches  as  damnable  and 
accursed  to-day  and  for  all  eternity."  The  principal  motive 
for  his  action  was  the  "  Divine  command  "  he  had  received 
"  to  preach  the  observance  of  the  Fourth  Commandment  in 
these  matters."2 

What  Luther,  however,  was  most  sensitive  to  was  that 
some  of  the  Wittenberg  lawyers,  conformably  with  the 
traditional  code,  declared  the  marriages  of  priests,  and 
consequently  his  own,  to  be  invalid  in  law,  and  the  children 
of  such  unions  to  be  incapable  of  inheriting.  He  keenly 
felt  the  blow  which  was  thus  directed  against  himself  and 
his  children.  His  displeasure  he  gave  vent  to  in  some 
drastic  utterances.  If  what  the  lawyers  say  is  correct, 
he  continues  in  the  writing  above  referred  to  addressed  to 
the  Elector,  "then  I  should  also  be  obliged  to  forsake  the 
Evangel  and  crawl  back  into  the  frock  [the  religious  habit] 
in  the  devil's  name,  by  power  and  virtue  of  both  ecclesiastical 
and  secular  law.  Then  Your  Electoral  Highness  would  have 
to  have  my  head  chopped  off,  dealing  likewise  with  all  those 
who  have  married  nuns,  as  the  Emperor  Jovian  decreed 
more  than  a  thousand  years  ago  "  [and  as  the  law  still  stood 
in  the  codes  then  in  use], 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  240.    "  Table-Talk. " 

2  On  January  18,  1545,  "  Briefe,"  ed.  De  Wette,  5,  p.  716  f. 


42  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

Thoughts  such  as  these,  on  the  reprobation  of  his  union 
with  Bora  by  the  law  of  the  Church  and  of  the  Christian 
Roman  Empire,  stood  in  glaring  contrast  to  the  pleasant 
moods  of  domestic  life  to  which  he  so  gladly  gave  himself  up. 
He  sought  to  find  solace  from  his  public  cares  and  conflicts 
in  his  family  circle,  and  some  compensation  for  the  troubles 
which  the  great  ones  of  the  earth  caused  him  in  the  domestic 
delights  in  which  he  would  have  wished  all  other  fallen 
priests  to  share.  He  succeeded,  to  an  extent  which  appeared 
by  no  means  enviable  to  those  who  followed  a  different  ideal, 
in  forgetting  his  priestly  state  and  its  demands.  In  one  of 
the  letters  just  mentioned  he  writes  as  a  father  to  Spalatin, 
who  also  had  had  recourse  to  marriage  :  "  May  you  live 
happily  in  the  Lord  with  your  rib  [i.e.  your  wife].  My  little 
Hans  sends  you  greetings  ;  he  is  now  in  the  month  of  teeth- 
ing and  is  beginning  to  lisp  ;  it  is  delightful  to  see  how  he 
will  leave  no  one  in  peace  about  him.  My  Katey  also  sends 
you  her  best  wishes,  above  all  for  a  little  Spalatin,  to  teach 
you  what  she  boasts  of  having  learnt  from  her  little  Hans, 
i.e.  the  crown  and  joy  of  wedded  life,  which  the  Pope  and  his 
world  were  not  worthy  of."1 

What  Canon  Law  said  of  the  high  calling  of  the  priest  and 
religious  and  of  the  depth  of  the  fall  of  those  who  proved 
untrue  to  it,  no  longer  made  the  slightest  impression  on  him. 
It  would  have  been  in  vain  had  a  St.  Jerome  of  olden  days, 
a  mediaeval  St.  Bernard  or  a  Geiler  of  Kaysersberg  cham- 
pioned the  cause  of  Canon  Law  against  Luther  and  his  nun 
in  the  glowing  language  they  knew  so  well  how  to  use. 
Luther's  own  words  quoted  above  concerning  the  death 
penalty  decreed  by  Jovian  the  Christian  Emperor  against 
anyone  sacrilegiously  violating  a  nun,  illuminate  as  with  a 
lightning  flash  the  antagonism  between  antiquity  and 
Luther's  doings. 

He  asserts  himself  proudly  because  he  considers  his 
heavenly  calling  to  expound  the  new  Evangel,  and  his 
Divine  mission,  had  been  questioned  by  the  lawyers 
who  represented  the  authority  of  the  State.  When,  in 
defiance  of  their  objections  against  the  legitimacy  of  his 
family,  he  drafted  his  celebrated  will,  he  was  careful  to 
inform  them  that,  for  its  validity,  he  has  no  need  of  them 
or  of  a  notary  ;  he  was  "  Dr.  Martinus  Luther,  God's  Notary 

1  On  January  1,  1527,  "  Brief wechsel,"  0,  p.  4. 


ON  ARMED  RESISTANCE  43 

and  Witness  to  His  Gospel,"  and  was  "  well  known  in 
heaven,  on  earth  and  in  hell  "  ;  that  "  God  had  entrusted 
him  with  the  Gospel  of  His  Dear  Son  and  had  made  him 
faithful  and  true  to  it,"  for  which  reason,  "  in  spite  of  the 
fury  of  all  the  devils,"  many  "  in  the  world  regarded  him  as 
a  teacher  of  truth."1 


3.   The  Question  of  the  Religious  War ;  Luther's  Vacillating 
Attitude.     The  League  of  Schmalkalden,  1531 

After  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  Luther,  as  we  have  shown 
(vol.  ii.,  pp.  391,  395  f.),  proclaimed  the  war  of  religion  much 
more  openly  than  ever  before.  His  writings,  "  Auff  das 
vermeint  Keiserlich  Edict  "  and  "  Widder  den  Meuchler  zu 
Dresen,"  bear  witness  to  this.  The  proceedings  taken  by 
the  Empire  on  the  ground  of  the  resolutions  of  Worms,  and 
the  attitude  of  the  Catholic  Princes  and  Estates,  appeared 
to  him  merely  a  plot,  a  shameful  artifice  on  the  part  of  the 
"  blood-hounds  "  who  opposed  him. 

In  his  writing  against  the  Assassin,  i.e.  Duke  George  of 
Saxony,  he  expounds  his  politico-religious  standpoint  in  a 
way  which  became  his  rule  for  the  future.  Cain  and  Abel,  the 
devil  and  the  righteous,  stand  face  to  face.  "  The  world 
belongs  either  to  the  devil  or  to  the  Children  of  God.  The 
devil's  realm  conceals  a  murderer  and  blood-hound,  Abel, 
a  pious  and  peaceable  heart."  Abel  stands  for  the  Lutherans, 
Cain  and  the  devil  for  the  Papists.  It  is  a  "  veracious 
opinion,  founded  on  Scripture  and  proved  by  the  fruits  of 
the  Papists,  that  they  arc  ever  on  the  watch  and  lie  in  wait 
day  and  night  to  destroy  us  and  root  us  out."2  "  If  the 
Emperor  or  the  authorities  purpose  to  make  war  on  God 
[i.e.  Luther's  Evangel],  then  no  one  must  obey  them."  In 
this  case  everyone  must  resist,  for  it  is  no  "  disobedience, 
rebellion  or  contumacy  to  refuse  to  obey  and  assist  in 
shedding  innocent  blood."3 

Opposition  and  violent  resistance  to  the  lawful  authority 
of  the  empire  and  its  legitimate  action  is  here  justified  by  the 
argument  that  to  fight  for  the  Evangel  is  no  revolt. 

1  Will  of  January  6,  1542,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  56,  p.  2  ;  "  Briefe," 
ed.  Do  Wette,  5,  p.  422. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  3,  p.  469  ;  Erl.  cd.,  252,  p.  126.  Dating 
from  the  commencement  of  1531. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  447  =  111. 


44  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

The  defiant  resolve  to  proceed  to  any  extreme  regardless 
of  others  or  of  the  public  weal,  finds  its  strongest  expression 
in  Luther's  words  during  and  after  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  : 
"  Not  one  hair's  breadth  will  I  yield  to  the  foe,"  he  wrote 
from  the  fortress  of  Coburg,  with  a  hint  at  the  wavering 
attitude  of  Melanchthon  and  Jonas.  This  it  was  which  led 
up  to  the  statement  already  quoted  :  "If  war  is  to  come, 
let  it  come."  "  God  has  delivered  them  up  to  be 
slaughtered."1 

Luther  on  Armed  Resistance,  until  1530. 

If  we  glance  at  Luther's  former  attitude  towards  open 
resistance,  we  find  that  it  would  be  unjust  to  say  that  he 
preferred  religious  war  to  peaceful  propaganda.  He  per- 
ceived the  danger  which  it  involved.  At  an  earlier  period 
he  several  times  had  occasion  to  intervene  when  warring 
elements  threatened  to  estrange  the  German  Princes.  We 
find  statements  of  his  where  he  speaks  against  armed 
resistance  and  points  out  (to  use  his  later  words)  what  a 
"  blot  upon  our  teaching  "  a  "  breach  or  disturbance  of  the 
peace  of  the  land  would  be."  2  There  is  no  question  that  such 
utterances  preponderate  with  him  until  1530.  From  the 
very  first  years  of  his  public  career  he  was  anxious  to  impress 
on  all,  particularly  on  his  own  Sovereign,  that  the  Word 
alone  must  work  all ;  he  eliminates  as  far  as  possible  every 
prospect  of  a  struggle  with  the  Emperor  or  the  other  rulers, 
which  was  what  the  Elector  really  dreaded.  He  also 
frequently  expounds  theoretically,  more  particularly  in  his 
booklet  "Von  welltlicher  Uberkeytt"  (1523),  the  duty  of 
Christians  not  to  resist  the  authorities,  because  the  Kingdom 
of  God  means  yielding,  humility  and  submission  ;  every 
true  believer  must  even  allow  himself  to  be  "  fleeced  and 
oppressed  "  ;  he  must  indeed  confess  the  evangelical  faith, 
but  be  willing  to  "  suffer  "  under  an  authority  hostile  to  the 
faith  (cp.  vol.  ii.,  p.  229  f.).  When  occasion  offered  he  was 
ready  to  quote  numerous  passages  from  Holy  Scripture  in 
order  to  show  that  violent  revolt  and  armed  intervention 
on  behalf  of  the  Gospel  are  forbidden,  and  that  the  German 
Princes  had  nothing  to  fear  from  him  in  this  regard. 

1  See  vol.  ii.,  p.  391. 

I2  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  61,  p.  332  seq.     "Table-Talk."     Mathesius, 
"  Tischreden,"  p.  133  of  the  year  1540. 


ON  ARMED  RESISTANCE  45 

None  the  less,  his  enterprise  was  visibly  drifting  towards 
the  employment  of  force  and  towards  war. 

How  deeply  he  felt  the  premonition  of  civil  war  is  plain,  for 
instance,  from  the  following  : 

"  There  will  be  no  lack  of  breaches  of  the  peace,  and  of  war 
only  too  much,"  he  wrote  in  1528  to  the  Elector  Johann.1  He 
and  Melanchthon  together  also  wrote  in  the  same  strain  to  the 
Crown-Prince  of  Saxony,  Johann  Frederick,  in  1528  ;  "  Time 
will  bring  enough  fighting  with  it  which  it  will  be  impossible  to 
avoid,  so  that  we  should  be  grateful  to  accept  peace  where  we 
are  able." 2  As  early  as  1522  he  had  given  to  the  Elector  Frederick 
one  of  his  reasons  for  leaving  the  Wartburg  and  returning  to 
Wittenberg  :  "I  am  much  afraid  and  troubled  because  I  am, 
alas,  convinced  that  there  will  be  a  great  revolt  in  the  German 
lands,  by  which  God  will  chastise  the  nation."  The  Evangel  was 
well  received  by  the  common  people,  but  some  were  desirous  of 
extinguishing  the  light  by  force.  And  yet  "  not  only  the  spiritual, 
but  also  the  secular  power,  must  yield  to  the  Evangel,  whether 
cheerfully  or  otherwise,  as  all  the  accounts  contained  in  the 
Bible  sufficiently  show.  ...  I  am  only  concerned  lest  the  revolt 
should  begin  with  the  Lords,  and,  like  a  national  calamity,  engulf 
the  priesthood."3 

Nevertheless  he  is  determined  to  be  of  good  cheer  ;  even 
should  the  war  ensue,  his  conscience  is  "  pure,  guiltless  and 
untroubled,  whereas  the  consciences  of  the  Papists  are  guilty, 
anxious  and  unclean."  "  Therefore  let  things  take  their  course 
and  do  their  worst,  whether  it  be  war  or  rebellion  according  as 
God's  anger  decrees."4 

This  gives  redoubled  weight  to  his  determination  to  press 
forward  relentlessly.  "  Let  justice  prevail  even  though  the 
whole  world  should  be  reduced  to  ruin.  For  I  say  throw  peace 
into  the  nethermost  hell  if  it  is  to  be  purchased  at  the  price  of 
harm  to  the  Evangel  and  to  the  faith."5 

It  has  been  admitted  on  the  Protestant  side  that  "  Luther 
adhered  to  this  view  throughout  his  life,  viz.  :  that  his  doctrine 
must  be  preached  even  though  it  should  lead  to  the  destruction 

1  On  May  8,  1528,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  54,  p.  5  ("  Briefwechsel," 
6,  p.  274). 

2  On  same  date,  ibid.,  p.  6  ("  Briefwechsel,"  ibid.). 

3  On  March  7,  1522,  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  Ill  f.  ("Brief- 
wechsel," 3,  p.  298). 

4  In  the  "Warnunge  an  seine  lieben  Deudschen,"  1531,  "Werke," 
Weim.  ed.,  30,  3,  p.  279  ;  Erl.  ed.,  252,  p.  8.  It  is  true  that  this  and 
the  following  statement  belong  to  the  period  subsequent  to  the  Diet 
of  Augsburg,  but  they  also  throw  light  on  the  earlier  period. 

5  In  a  Latin  memorandum  which  Enders  with  some  probability 
assigns  to  the  latter  half  of  August,  1531,  "  Briefwechsel,"  9,  p.  76  : 
"  Fiat  iustitia  et  per  eat  mundus  ;  pacem  enim  ad  ima  tartar  a  relegandam 
esse  dico,  quae  cum  evangelii  iactura  redimitur '."  There  are  no  grounds 
for  doubting  Luther's  authorship,  but  the  original  was  probably 
written  in  German. 


46  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

of  all."1  In  confirmation  of  this,  another  passage  taken  from 
Luther's  writings  is  quoted  :  "It  has  been  said  that  if  the  Pope 
falls  Germany  will  perish,  be  utterly  wrecked  and  ruined  ;  but 
how  can  I  help  that  ?  I  cannot  save  it ;  whose  fault  is  it  ?  Ah, 
they  say,  if  Luther  had  not  come  and  preached,  the  Papacy 
would  still  be  on  its  legs  and  we  should  be  at  peace.  I  cannot 
help  that."2 

When  the  same  author  urges  in  Luther's  defence  that,  "  he 
was  not  really  indifferent  to  the  evil  consequences  of  his  actions 
in  ecclesiastical  and  political  matters,"3  we  naturally  ask  whether 
the  author  of  the  schism  did  not  at  times  feel  bitterly  his  heavy 
responsibility  for  these  results,  and  whether  he  should  not  have 
exerted  himself  in  every  possible  way  to  ward  off  the  "  evil 
consequences."  His  own  admissions,  to  be  given  elsewhere 
(see  vol.  v.,  xxxii.),  concerning  his  inward  struggles,  disclose  how 
frequently  he  was  troubled  with  such  reproaches  and  what 
difficulty  he  had  in  ridding  himself  of  them. 

To  the  inflammatory  invitations  already  given  we  may  sub- 
join a  few  others. 

"  It  were  better,"  Luther  says  in  his  Church-postils,  "  that  all 
the  churches  and  foundations  throughout  the  land  were  up- 
rooted and  burnt  to  powder — and  the  sin  would  be  less  even 
though  done  out  of  mere  wantonness — than  that  a  single  soul 
should  be  seduced  and  corrupted  by  this  [Papistical]  error."4 
And,  further  on  :  "  Here  you  see  why  the  lightning  commonly 
strikes  the  churches  rather  than  any  other  buildings,  viz.  : 
because  God  is  more  hostile  to  them  than  to  any  others,  because 
in  no  den  of  robbers,  no  house  of  ill-fame  is  there  such  sin,  such 
blasphemy  against  God,  such  murder  of  the  soul  and  destruction 
of  the  Church  committed  as  in  these  houses  "  [i.e.  in  the  churches 
where  the  Catholic  worship  obtained].5  Elsewhere,  at  an 
earlier  date  he  had  said  :  "  Would  it  be  astonishing  if  the  Princes, 
the  nobles  and  the  laity  were  to  hit  Pope,  bishop,  priest  and 
monk  on  the  head  and  drive  them  out  of  the  land  ?  It  has  never 
before  been  heard  of  in  Christendom,  and  it  is  abominable  to 
hear  now,  that  the  Christian  people  should  openly  be  com- 
manded to  deny  the  truth."6 — Besides  these,  we  have  the  fiery 
words  he  flung  among  the  people  :  "  Where  the  ecclesiastical 
Estate  does  not  proceed  in  the  way  of  faith  and  charity  [accord- 
ing to  the  Evangel],  my  wish  is  not  merely  that  my  doctrine 
should  interfere  with  the  monasteries  and  foundations,  but  that 
they  were  reduced  to  one  great  heap  of  ashes."7 — In  fine  :  "A 
grand  destruction  of  all  the  monasteries  and  foundations  would 

1  W.  Walther,  "  Luthers  Waffen,"  1886,  p.  158,  and  his  "  Fur 
Luther,"  1906,  p.  246  ff.,  278  ff. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  33,  p.  606  ;  Erl.  ed.,  48,  p.  342,  in  the 
Exposition  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  1530-1532.     Cp.  Walther,  ibid. 

3  Walther,  ibid.,  p.  170. 

4  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  72,  p.  222.  5  Ibid.,  p.  224. 

6  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  621  ;  Erl.  ed.,  242,  p.  46,  in  the  work 
"  Widder  die  Bullen  des  Endchrists,"  1520. 

7  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  72,  p.  330  in  the  "  Kirchenpostille.' 


ON  ARMED  RESISTANCE  47 

be  the  best  reformation,  for  they  are  of  no  earthly  use  to  Christen- 
dom and  might  well  be  spared.  .  .  .  What  is  useless  and  un- 
necessary and  yet  does  such  untold  mischief,  and  to  boot  is 
beyond  reformation,  had  much  better  be  exterminated."1  The 
word  here  rendered  as  "  destruction  "  is  one  of  which  Luther 
frequently  makes  use  to  denote  violent  annihilation,  for  instance, 
of  the  devastation  of  Jerusalem  and  its  Temple,  nor  can  we  well 
explain  it  away  in  the  above  connection  ;  he  certainly  never 
pictured  to  himself  the  "  grand  destruction  of  all  the  monasteries 
and  foundations  "  otherwise  than  as  a  general  reduction  to  ruins. 
The  excuse  brought  forward  in  modern  times  in  extenuation  of 
Luther  is  a  very  strange  one,  viz.  :  that,  when  giving  vent  to 
such  expressions,  he  frequently  added  the  qualifying  clause  "  if 
the  Catholics  do  not  change  their  opinions,"  then  violence  will 
befall  them  ;  hence  only  in  the  event  of  their  final  refusal  to 
accept  the  new  teaching  was  the  destruction  so  vividly  described 
to  overtake  them  !  Presumably  his  contemporaries  should  have 
shown  themselves  grateful  for  this  saving  clause.  The  mitigation 
conveyed  by  the  clause  in  question  in  reality  amounted  to  this  : 
Only  if  the  whole  world  becomes  Lutheran  will  it  be  saved  from 
destruction.2 

It  is  psychologically  worth  noticing  that  Luther,  in  his  zeal, 
seems  never  to  have  perceived  that  the  argument  might  just  as 
well  be  turned  against  himself.  The  Emperor  and  the  Catholic 
powers  of  the  Empire,  with  at  least  as  much  show  of  reason, 
might  have  urged  as  he  did,  that  no  power,  without  being  doomed 
to  "  destruction  "  and  to  being  "  burnt  to  ashes,"  could  stand 
against  the  Gospel.  The  Gospel  which  they  defended  was  that 
handed  down  by  the  Church,  whereas  Luther's  Evangel,  to 
mention  only  one  point,  was  novel  and  hitherto  unheard  of  by 
theologians  and  faithful  laity  alike.  On  the  one  occasion  when  this 
thought  occurred  to  him,  he  had  the  following  excuse  ready  : 
We  are  sure  of  our  faith,  hence  we  may  and  must  demand  that 
everything  yield  to  it  ;  the  Emperor  and  his  party  on  the  other 
hand  have  no  such  assurance  and  can  never  reach  it.  "  We 
know  that  the  Emperor  is  not  and  cannot  be  certain  of  it,  because 
we  know  that  he  errs  and  seeks  to  oppose  the  Evangel.  We  are 
not  obliged  to  believe  that  he  is  certain  because  he  does  not  act 

1  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  72,  p.  121,  "  Kirchenpostille." 

2  An  earlier  explanation  of  Luther's  as  to  the  way  in  which  he 
understood  destruction  only  shows  that  then,  in  1522,  he.  was  averse 
to  the  carrying  out  of  such  a  project  :  "  This  destruction  and  annihila- 
tion I  would  not  have  understood  as  meaning  the  use  of  violence  and 
the  sword.  For  they  are  not  worthy  of  such  chastisement  nor  would 
anything  be  gained  by  it — but  as  Daniel  viii.  teaches  :  Antichrist 
shall  be  destroyed  without  hands,  when  everyone  teaches,  speaks  and 
holds  God's  Word  against  him.  .  .  .  This  is  a  true  Christian  destruc- 
tion." "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10',  2,  p.  140;  Erl.  ed.,  28,  p.  178. 
Even  H.  Preuss  recognises  in  his  "  Die  Vorstellungen  vom  Antichrist," 
p.  115,  that,  in  Luther's  replies  to  Alveld  and  in  his  epitome  of  Silvester 
Prierias,  "  there  smoulders  such  anger  as  shows  that  recourse  to  arms 
was  imminent."  Cp.  passages  from  Luther's  writings  referred  to  in 
vol.  ii.,  p.  190,  n.  3. 


48  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

in  accordance  with  God's  Word,  whereas  we  on  the  other  hand 
do  ;  for  it  is  his  bounden  duty  to  recognise  God's  Word  !  " 
Otherwise,  Luther  adds,  "  every  murderer  and  adulterer  might 
also  plead  :  '  I  am  right,  therefore  you  must  approve  my  act 
because  I  am  certain  I  am  in  the  right.'  "x — "  It  was  with  argu- 
ments like  these  that  the  Protestant  Estates  were  to  justify 
their  overthrow  of  the  ancient  faith  and  worship,  and  to  demon- 
strate the  wickedness  of  the  Emperor's  efforts  to  preserve  the 
faith  and  worship  of  his  fathers."2 

Of  the  various  memoranda  which  Luther  had  to  draw  up 
for  his  Sovereign  on  the  question  of  armed  resistance,  that 
of  February  8,  1523,  prepared  for  the  Elector  Frederick, 
must  be  mentioned  first.3  In  this  the  Prince's  attention  is 
drawn  to  the  fact,  that  publicly  he  had  hitherto  preserved 
an  attitude  of  neutrality  concerning  religious  questions,  and 
had  merely  given  out  that,  as  a  layman,  he  was  waiting  for 
the  triumph  of  the  truth.  Hence  it  was  necessary  that  he 
should  declare  himself  for  the  justice  of  Luther's  cause  if 
he  intended  to  abandon  his  attitude  of  submission  to  the 
Imperial  authority.  In  that  case  he  might  have  recourse 
to  arms  in  the  character  of  a  stranger  who  comes  to  the 
rescue,  but  not  as  a  sovereign  of  the  Empire.  Further,  "he 
must  do  this  only  at  the  call  of  a  singular  spirit  and  faith, 
short  of  which  he  must  give  way  to  the  sword  of  the  higher 
power  and  die  with  his  Christians."4  Should  he,  however,  be 
attacked,  not  by  the  Emperor,  but  by  the  Catholic  Princes, 
then,  after  first  attempting  to  bring  about  peace,  he  must 
repel  force  by  force. 

When,  in  1528,  the  false  reports  were  circulated,  of  which 
we  hear  in  the  history  of  the  Pack  negotiation,  to  wit,  that 
the  Catholic  Princes  of  the  Empire  were  on  the  point  of  fall- 
ing upon  the  Protesters,  Luther  sent  a  letter  to  Johann,  his 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  54,  p.  180  ("  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  105),  in  a 
"  Memorandum  on  the  abolition  of  the  Mass  and  monastic  life,  etc.," 
dated  July  ,13,  and  assigned  by  Enders  to  the  year  1530. 

2  Janssen,  "Hist,  of  the  German  People"  (Eng.  trans.),  5,  p.  288. 

3  "  Brief  wechsel,"  4,  p.  76  seq.,  where  will  be  found  the  opinions 
of  Link,  Melanchthon,  Bugenhagen  and  Amsdorf,  given  at  the  same 
time  as  to  "  whether  a  ruler  may  protect  his  subjects  against  religious 
persecution  by  the  Emperor  or  other  Princes  by  engaging  in  war  ?  " 
Cp.  the  printed  form  of  Luther's  opinion  given  in  G.  Berbig,  "  Quellen 
und  Darstellungen  aus  der  Gesch.  des  Reformationszeitalters," 
Hft.  5,  Leipzig,  1908,  p.  98  f. 

4  "  (Oportet)  ut  id  vocante  aliquo  singulari  spiritu  et  fide  faciat  ; 
alias  omnino  cedere  debet  et  ipse  gladio  superiori  et  cum  christianis, 
quos  patitur,  mori."  Instead  of  "  patitur,^  as  Enders  has  it,  Berbig  has 
"  fatetur,"  which  is  certainly  better. 


ON  ARMED  RESISTANCE  49 

Elector,  regarding  the  question  of  law.  What  was  to  be 
done  if  the  Catholic  powers,  without  the  authorisation  of 
the  Emperor,  attacked  the  Lutheran  party  ?  Luther's 
verdict  was  that  such  an  act  on  the  part  of  "  scoundrel - 
princes  "  must  be  resisted  by  force  of  arms  "as  a  real 
revolt  and  conspiracy  against  the  Empire  and  His  Imperial 
Majesty,"  but  that  "  to  take  the  offensive  and  anticipate 
such  an  action  on  the  part  of  the  Princes  was  in  no  wise  to 
be  counselled."1 

On  this  occasion  he  manifested  serious  apprehension  of 
the  mischief  which  might  be  caused  by  a  precipitate  armed 
attack  on  the  part  of  his  princely  patrons.  It  was  a  very 
different  matter  to  look  forward  to  a  mere  possibility  of  war 
and  to  find  himself  directly  confronted  with  an  outbreak  of 
hostilities.  "  May  God  preserve  us  from  such  a  horror  ! 
This  would  indeed  be  to  fish  with  a  draw-net  and  to  take 
might  for  right.  No  greater  blame  could  attach  to  the 
Evangel,  for  this  would  be  no  Peasant  Rising  but  a  Rising 
of  the  Princes,  which  would  destroy  Germany  utterly  to  the 
joy  of  Satan."2 

The  above  memorandum  had  dealt  with  the  question  of 
an  attack  by  the  Princes  of  the  Empire.  But  what  was  to  be 
done  if  the  Emperor  himself  intervened  ? 

The  Lutheran  Princes  and  Estates  were  anxious  to 
exercise  the  utmost  caution  and  restraint  with  regard  to 
the  Emperor  personally,  and  in  this  Luther  agreed  with 
them.  At  Spires,  in  1526,  they  had  decided  to  behave  "  in 
such  a  way  as  to  be  able  to  answer  for  it  before  God  and  the 
Emperor,"  which,  however,  did  not  prevent  them  from 
establishing  the  "  evangelical  "  worship  in  contravention  of 
the  decrees  of  Worms.  It  was  hoped  that  the  Emperor, 
hampered  by  his  foreign  policy,  would  not  take  up  arms. 
When,  accordingly,  the  protesting  Princes,  at  the  time  of 
the  Pack  business,  commenced  warlike  preparations  against 
the  Catholic  party  in  the  Empire,  they  solemnly  declared  at 
Rotach,  in  June,  1528,  that  they  "  excepted  "  the  Emperor. 
In  the  same  way  they  desired  that  their  action  at  Spires  in 
1529,  where  they  "protested"  against  the  Emperor,  should 
be  looked  upon  as  an  appeal  to  the  Emperor  "  better  in- 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  54,  pp.  1  and  55,  p.  264  ("  Brief wechsel,"  6,  p. 
231)  (March  28,  1528). 

2  To  Chancellor  Brixck,  March  28,  1528,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  55, 
p.  266  f.  ("  Brief  wechsel,"  6,  p.  231). 

III.— E 


50  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

structed."  When  the  Emperor,  on  account  of  the  protest, 
began  to  take  a  serious  view  of  the  matter,  any  scruples 
which  the  sovereigns  of  Hesse  and  the  Saxon  Electorate 
may  have  felt  concerning  the  employment  of  armed  resist- 
ance against  him  soon  evaporated.  In  Saxony  it  was  held 
that  a  closer  alliance  of  the  Princes  favourable  to  the  innova- 
tions ought  not  to  be  "  shorn  of  its  meaning  and  value  "  by 
this  "  exemption  of  the  Emperor  "  ;  the  exemption,  it  was 
argued,  was  only  of  the  person  of  the  Emperor,  not  of  his 
mandataries.  A  Saxon  memorandum  at  the  end  of  July, 
1529,  practically  made  an  end  of  the  exemption  ;  "  resist- 
ance, even  to  the  Emperor,  the  most  dangerous  of  our  foes, 
belongs  to  the  natural  law  of  humanity."1  This  was  the 
opinion  of  the  Margrave  of  Brandenburg,  and  even  more 
so  of  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse.  At  Nuremberg,  however' 
Lazarus  Spcnglcr  sought  to  persuade  the  Council  to  negative 
this  resolution  ;  he  was  still  entirely  under  the  influence  of 
Luther's  earlier  teaching,  that  the  spirit  must  be  ready  to 
endure  and  suffer  under  the  secular  authorities. 

Luther,  in  spite  of  his  frequent  threats  and  urgings,  was 
not  immediately  to  be  induced  to  make  common  cause  with 
the  politicians.  In  January,  1530,  Johann  Brenz  penned  a 
memorandum  in  which,  in  terms  of  the  utmost  decision,  he 
denies  the  lawfulness  of  resisting  the  Emperor,  whereas  on 
Christmas  Day,  1529,  in  a  similar  memorandum  requested  of 
him  by  the  Elector,  Luther  expresses  himself  most  ambigu- 
ously. He,  indeed,  just  hints  at  the  unlawfulness  of  such 
resistance,  but  qualifies  this  admission  by  such  words  as  the 
following  :  "  There  must  be  no  resistance  unless  actual 
violence  is  done,  or  dire  necessity  compels  "  ;  "  without  a 
Council  and  without  a  hearing  "  there  must  be  no  war 
against  the  Emperor  ;  before  this,  however,  much  water  is 
likely  to  flow  under  the  bridge,  and  God  may  easily  find 
means  of  establishing  peace  ;  "  hence  my  opinion  is  that 
the  project  of  taking  the  field  should  be  abandoned  for  the 
nonce,  unless  further  cause  or  necessity  should  arise."2 

1  v.  Schubert,  "  Beitrage  zur  Gesch.  der  evangel.  Bekenntnis-  und 
Biindnisbildung,  1529-1530,"  "  Zeitschr.  fur  KG.,"  29,  1908,  p.  273  f., 
an  article  giving  interesting  details  concerning  the  earlier  history  of 
the  League  of  Schmalkalden. 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  56,  p.  xxiii.,  and,  still  better,  "  Briefe,"  ed. 
De  Wette  (Seidemann),  6,  p.  105  ("  Brief wechsel,"  7,  p.  192).  Cp. 
Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  647  f. 


ON  ARMED  RESISTANCE  51 

In  a  letter  to  George,  Margrave  of  Brandenburg,  written 
on  March  6,  1530,  with  the  object  of  winning  him  over  to 
the  war  party,  Philip  of  Hesse  declared  that  he  had  seen 
"  in  Luther's  own  writings  to  the  Elector,  that  he  sanctioned 
the  latter's  resisting  the  Emperor."  This  probably  refers 
to  the  above  memorandum  which  lies  to-day  in  the  Hessian 
archives  at  Marburg,  the  original  of  which  seems  to  have 
been  submitted  to  Philip  ;  it  may,  however,  have  been  some 
other  letter  since  lost,  or  -possibly  the  1528  memorandum 
in  which  Luther  speaks  of  the  lawfulness  of  repelling  the 
anticipated  attack  of  the  Catholic  Princes.1 

To  take  up  arms  in  the  cause  of  the  Evangel  was  certainly 
not  in  accordance  with  Luther's  previous  teaching,  however 
much  he  may  himself  have  occasionally  disregarded  it. 
Owing  to  a  certain  mystical  confidence  in  his  cause,  he 
could  not  bring  himself  to  believe  that  things  would  ever 
come  to  be  settled  by  force  of  arms.  The  Elector  Johann, 
unlike  Philip  of  Hesse,  again  began  to  hesitate.  On  January 
27,  1530,  he  instructed  the  Wittenberg  Faculty  to  let  him 
have,  within  three  weeks,  the  views  of  its  lawyers.  These 
counsellors  declared  in  favour  of  the  lawfulness  of  such  a 
war  against  the  Emperor,  basing  their  view  on  two  considera- 
tions, viz.  that  as  an  appeal  had  been  made  to  a  Council  the 
Emperor  could  not  in  the  meantime  insist  upon  submission 
in  matters  of  religion,  and  that,  on  his  election  at  Frankfurt, 
it  had  been  agreed  that  all  the  Princes  and  Estates  should 
retain  their  customary  rights.  In  spite  of  this,  the  lawyers 
consulted  were  not  in  favour  of  having  forthwith  recourse  to 
open  resistance,  but  suggested  the  exercise  of  patience  and 
restraint.2  Luther  and  Melanchthon  replied  only  on  March 
6,  1530.  What  strikes  one  in  Luther's  reply  is  that  "  he 
has  nothing  personal  to  say  on  the  relations  between 
Emperor  and  Prince  ;  this  was  a  serious  omission.  All 
he  sees  is  the  individual  Christian — in  this  case  the  sovereign 
— and  his  fidelity  to  the  faith.  .  .  .  He  is  still  unable  to 
believe  in  a  coming  disaster,  for  this  his  God  will  surely  not 
permit."3 

His  categorical  declaration,  in  the  memorandum  of  March 
30,  1530,  against  the  lawfulness  of  resistance,  is  of  greater 

1  v.  Schubert,  ibid.,  p.  306  f. 

2  Cp.  Melanchthon  in  the  letter  to  Bugenhagen,  Enders,  "  Luthers 
Brief wechsel,"  7.  p.  248.  3  v.  Schubert,  ibid.,  p.  313. 


52  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

importance,  for  it  is  the  last  of  the  kind.  After  this  the 
change  already  foreseen  was  to  take  place. 

With  an  express  appeal  to  his  three  advisers,  Jonas, 
Bugenhagen  and  Melanchthon,  Luther  explains  to  the 
Elector,1  that  armed  resistance  "  can  in  no  way  be  reconciled 
with  Scripture."  Quite  candidly  he  lays  stress  on  the  un- 
favourable prospects  of  resistance  and  the  evil  consequences 
which  must  attend  success.  Having  taken  the  step,  we 
should,  he  says,  "  be  forced  to  go  further,  to  drive  away  the 
Emperor  and  make  ourselves  Emperor."  "  In  the  con- 
fusion and  tumult  which  would  ensue  everyone  would  want 
to  be  Emperor,  and  what  horrible  bloodshed  and  misery 
would  that  not  cause."2 

In  principle,  it  will  be  observed,  the  letter  left  open  a 
loophole  in  the  event  of  a  more  favourable  condition  of  the 
Protestant  cause  supervening,  i.e.  should  it  be  possible  to 
arrive  at  the  desired  result  by  some  quieter  and  safer  means, 
and  without  deposing  the  Emperor.  None  the  less  note- 
worthy are,  however,  the  biblical  utterances  to  which 
Luther  again  returns  :  "A  Christian  ought  to  be  ready  to 
suffer  violence  and  injustice,  more  particularly  from  his  own 
ruler,"  otherwise  "  there  would  be  no  authority  or  obedience 
left  in  the  world."  He  would  fain  uphold,  against  all  law, 
"  whether  secular  or  Popish,"  the  truth,  that  "  authority  is 
of  Divine  institution."  Hence  the  Princes  must  quietly 
submit  to  all  the  Emperor  does  ;  "  Each  one  must  answer 
for  himself  and  maintain  his  belief  at  the  risk  of  life  and  limb, 
and  not  drag  the  Princes  with  him  into  danger."  "  The 
matter  must  be  committed  to  God."  Hence  the  memo- 
randum culminates  in  the  exhortation  to  sacrifice  "  life  and 
limb,"  i.e.  to  endure  martyrdom.3  This  memorandum  of 
Luther's  was  kept  secret.  At  any  rate  the  apparently 
heroic  renunciation  of  all  recourse  to  arms,  together  with  the 
reference — reminiscent  of  his  earlier  mysticism — to  the 
Christian's  vocation  to  suffer  violence  and  injustice,  make 
of  this  memorandum  a  remarkable  document  not  to  be 
matched  by  any  other  writing  of  Luther  at  that  time. 
Though  there  is  little  doubt  that  the  sight  of  the  com- 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  54,  p.  138  ft.  ("  Brief weohsel,"  7,  p.  239). 

2  Ibid.,  p.  142. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  140  f.  On  the  memorandum  destined  to  become  famous, 
cp.  O.  Clemen's  article  in  "  Theolog.  Studien  und  Kritiken,"  1909, 
p.  471  ff. 


ON  ARMED  RESISTANCE  53 

paratively  helpless  and  critical  position  of  the  new  party 
had  its  effect  here,  yet,  beyond  this,  there  is  a  psychological 
connection  between  the  standpoint  voiced  in  the  memo- 
randum and  Luther's  attitude  after  the  inward  change  which 
occurred  in  him  whilst  yet  a  monk.  His  perfectly  just 
injunction  not  to  withstand  the  Emperor,  he  rests  partly  on 
the  mystic  theories  he  had  imbibed  at  that  time,  partly  on 
his  early  erroneous  views  concerning  the  rights  of  the 
authorities  as  guardians  of  outward,  public  order.  In  his 
enthusiasm  for  his  cause  he  clings  to  that  presumptuous 
confidence  in  a  special  Divine  guidance,  which  had  inspired 
him  from  the  beginning  of  his  career.  "  The  call  of  a 
singular  spirit  and  faith,"  which  he  considered  necessary  in 
the  case  of  the  Elector  Frederick  (see  above,  p.  48),  he 
hears  quite  clearly  within  himself,  though  as  yet  this  call 
does  not  urge  him  to  advocate  armed  resistance  to  the 
Emperor,  but  merely  inspires  him  blindly  to  confide  in 
his  cause  and  to  exhort  others  to  "  martyrdom." 

Simultaneously  Melanchthon  sent  to  the  Elector  a  memo- 
randum of  his  own,  which,  apart  from  being  clearer  in 
language  and  thought,  closely  resembles  Luther's  and 
betrays  the  same  deficiencies.1 

The  Change  of  1530  ;  Influence  of  the  Courts. 

In  that  same  year,  1530,  after  his  return  to  Wittenberg 
from  the  Coburg  on  the  termination  of  the  Diet  of  Augsburg, 
a  notable  change  took  place  in  Luther's  public  attitude 
towards  the  question  of  the  employment  of  force.  This 
change  we  can  follow  step  by  step. 

The  fact  that  the  lawyers  attached  to  the  Court  had,  in 
view  of  the  circumstances,  altered  their  minds,  weighed 
strongly  with  Luther.  Confronted  with  the  measures  of 
retaliation  announced  by  the  Diet,  and  more  hopeful  regard- 
ing the  prospects  of  resistance  now  that  the  Protesters  were 
joining  forces,  the  councillors  of  the  Saxon  Electorate,  with 
Chancellor  Briick  at  their  head,  were  inclined  to  the  opinion 
that  whatever  sentences  the  Reichsgericht  might  pronounce 
in  virtue  of  the  Imperial  edict  of  Augsburg  might  safely  be 
disregarded,  which,  of  course,  was  tantamount  to  a  com- 
mencement of  resistance.  They  were  very  anxious  concern- 
ing the  consequences  of  the  decrees  of  Augsburg,  as  these 
1  Cp.  "  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  20. 


54  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

involved  the  restitution  of  all  the  property  and  rights  of  the 
Church,  which  had  been  appropriated  by  the  secular  power 
in  the  name  of  religion.  Johann,  Elector  of  Saxony,  for  a 
while  continued  to  regard  resistance  as  unlawful.  On 
reaching  Nuremberg,  on  his  return  journey  from  Augsburg, 
he  said  to  Luther's  friend  there,  Wenceslaus  Link  :  "  Should 
one  of  my  neighbours,  or  anyone  else,  attack  me  on  account 
of  the  Evangel,  I  should  resist  him  with  all  the  force  at  my 
command,  but  should  the  Emperor  come  and  attack  me,  he 
is  my  liege  lord  and  I  must  yield  to  him,  and  what  were  more 
honourable  than  to  be  exterminated  on  account  of  the  Word 
of  God?  "x  Gradually,  however,  he  was  brought  over  to 
the  new  standpoint  of  his  councillors.  The  example  of  the 
Landgrave  of  Hesse,  who  belonged  to  the  war  party  and 
was  very  hopeful  of  the  results  of  a  league,  had  great  weight 
with  him,  and  likewise  his  determination  not  to  surrender 
to  the  executors  of  the  Imperial  edict  the  Church  property 
which  had  been  confiscated.  The  innovations  which,  in  the 
beginning,  had  seemed  a  work  of  high-minded  idealists,  were 
now  pushed  forward  by  many  of  the  Princes,  for  motives  of 
the  very  lowest,  viz.  to  avoid  making  restitution  of  property 
which  had  been  unlawfully  distrained.  On  unevangelical 
motives  such  as  these  it  was  that  the  theory  of  submission  to 
the  secular  power,  in  particular  to  the  Emperor,  announced 
by  Luther  in  such  grandiloquent  language,  was  to  suffer 
shipwreck. 

Philip  of  Hesse,  who  was  aware  of  the  weak  points  in 
Luther's  previous  declarations  on  the  subject,  was  the  first 
to  attempt  to  bring  about  a  change  in  his  views. 

He  entered  into  communication  with  Luther  in  October,  1530, 
and  sent  him  a  "  writing,"  together  with  a  "  Christian  admoni- 
tion," to  encourage  him  and  his  theologians,  in  whom,  during 
the  Diet,  he  thought  he  had  detected  a  certain  tendency  to  waver. 
Luther  replied,  on  October  15,  in  a  very  devout  letter,  assuring 
the  Landgrave  that  he  had  "  received  both  the  writing  and  the 
admonition  with  pleasure  and  gladness."  "  I  beg  to  thank 
Your  Highness  for  your  good  and  earnest  counsel  "  ;  he  and  his, 
as  time  went  on,  were  "  even  less  disposed  to  yield  "  and  reckoned 
on  the  help  of  God.2 

Philip,  in  his  next  letter  a  week  later,  came  at  once  to  the 
crucial  point,  the  question  of  resistance.  He  reminded  Luther 
of  the  memorandum  in  which  he  had  said,  they  must  indeed  not 

1  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  249. 

2  "  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  284. 


ON  ARMED  RESISTANCE  55 

"  commence  the  war,  but  that  if  they  were  attacked  they  might 
defend  themselves"  (p.  50  f.).  Philip,  without  further  ado, 
explains  his  plans  against  the  Emperor.  The  Emperor,  he  says 
with  perfect  frankness,  "took  the  oath  to  his  Princes  at  his  election, 
just  as  much  as  they  did  to  him.  .  .  .  Hence,  if  the  Emperor 
does  not  keep  his  oath  to  us,  he  reduces  himself  to  the  rank  of 
any  other  man,  and  must  no  longer  be  regarded  as  a  real  Emperor, 
but  as  a  mere  breaker  of  the  peace."  The  "  most  important  of 
the  Electors  and  Estates  "  had  not  agreed  to  the  Reichstags- 
abschied.  Hence  there  was  hope  of  triumphing  over  the 
Emperor.  In  his  letter  to  Luther,  he  even  makes  use  of  com- 
parisons from  the  Bible,  just  as  Luther  himself  was  in  the  habit  of 
doing,  and  this  he  did  again  at  a  later  date  when  seeking  Luther's 
sanction  for  his  bigamy.  "  God  in  the  Old  Testament  did  not 
forsake  His  people  or  allow  the  country  to  perish  which  trusted 
in  Him."  He  had  come  to  the  aid  of  the  Bohemians  and  of 
"  many  other  too,  against  Emperors  and  such-like,  who  treated 
their  subjects  with  unjust  violence."  This  being  so,  he  requests 
Luther  for  his  "  advice  and  opinion  "  whether  force  may  not  be 
used,  seeing  that  "  His  Majesty  is  determined  to  re-establish  the 
devil's  doctrine."1 

Luther  now  saw  himself  obliged  openly  to  avow  his  standpoint, 
all  the  more  as  a  similar  request  had  reached  him  from  the 
Elector,  in  this  case  possibly  a  verbal  one.  He  left  the  Landgrave 
to  wait  and  replied  first  to  the  Elector,  though  only  by  word  of 
mouth,  so  as  not  to  commit  himself  irretrievably  on  so  delicate  a 
matter.  What  his  reply  exactly  was  is  not  known.  At  the  end 
of  October  he  had  to  go  to  Torgau  for  a  conference  on  the  subject 
with  the  Elector's  legal  advisers  and  possibly  those  of  other 
Princes.  Melanchthon  and  Jonas  accompanied  him,  and  the 
negotiations  were  protracted  and  lively.2 

During  these  negotiations  Luther  replied  from  Torgau,  on 
October  28,  to  the  letter  from  the  Landgrave  referred  to  above, 
though  in  general  and  evasive  terms.  He  says,  he  hopes  no 
blood  will  be  shed,  but,  in  the  event  of  things  going  so  far,  he  had 
told  the  Elector  his  opinion  on  resistance,  and  of  this  the  Land- 
grave would  hear  in  due  season  ;  that  it  would  be  dangerous  for 
him,  as  an  ecclesiastic,  to  put  this  into  writing,  for  many  reasons. 3 
Hence  for  the  nonce  he  was  determined  to  express  himself  only 
verbally  on  this  tiresome  question. 

In  what  direction  his  thoughts  were  then  turning  may  be 
gathered  from  what  he  says  to  the  Landgrave  in  the  same  letter 
concerning  his  writings  ;  the  latter  had  asked  him,  he  says,  for 
a  controversial  booklet,  "as  a  consolation  for  the  weak  "  ;  he 
intended   "  in  any  case  to  publish  a  booklet  shortly  .  .  .  ad- 

1  Reprinted  by  Enders  in  "  Luthers  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  286. 
Written  on  October  21,  1530. 

2  Luther  to  Lazarus  Spengler,  February  15,  1531,  "  Werke,"  Erl. 
ed.,  54,  p.  213  ("Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  361)  :  "  It  happened  that  they 
disputed  sharply  with  us  at  Torgau." 

3  "  Brief  wechsel,"  8,  p.  295. 


56  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

monishing  all  consciences,  that  no  subject  was  bound  to  render 
obedience  should  His  Imperial  Majesty  persist  "  ;  and  in  which 
he  will  prove  that  the  Emperor's  demands  are  "  blasphemous, 
murderous  and  diabolical  " — still,  the  booklet  was  not  to  be 
termed  "  seditious."  He  here  is  referring  either  to  the  "  Auff  das 
vermeint  Edict  "  or  to  the  "  Warnunge."  We  have  already- 
spoken  of  the  revolutionary  character  of  the  language  he  used 
in  these  tracts  published  in  the  early  part  of  1531,  and,  subse- 
quently, in  the  reply  "  Widder  den  Meuchler  zu  Dresen."1  What 
he  was  there  to  advocate  goes  far  beyond  the  limits  of  mere 
passive  resistance. 

He  was  at  first  unwilling  to  declare  his  views  at  Torgau. 
Not  to  contradict  what  he  had  previously  said,  he  protested 
that  the  question  did  not  concern  him,  since,  as  a  theologian, 
his  business  was  to  teach  Christ  only.  As  regards  secular 
matters,  he  could  only  counsel  compliance  with  the  law  and, 
on  the  matter  of  forcible  resistance  to  the  Emperor,  that  any 
action  taken  should  be  conformable  to  the  "  written  laws." 
"  But  what  these  laws  were  he  neither  knew  nor  cared."2 

The  assembled  lawyers  were,  however,  loath  to  leave 
Torgau  without  having  reached  an  understanding,  and  sub- 
mitted another  statement  to  Luther  and  his  colleagues, 
requesting  their  opinion  on  it.  In  this  document  they  had 
sought  to  prove,  from  sources  almost  exclusively  canonical, 
that  it  was  lawful  to  resist  the  Emperor  by  force,  because 
"  he  proceeds  and  acts  contrary  to  law,"  not  being  a  judge 
in  matters  of  religion,  and  that,  even  if  he  were  such  a  judge, 
he  had  no  right  to  do  anything  on  account  of  the  appeal  to  a 
Council.  They  urged  that  it  was  necessary  to  "  obey  God  and 
evangelical  truth  rather  than  men,"  and  that  the  Emperor 
was  "  no  more  than  a  private  individual  so  far  as  the  '  cogni- 
tion '  and  '  statution  '  of  this  matter  went  .  .  .  nor  does  the 
1  execution  '  come  within  his  province."  For  the  sake  of  the 
salvation  of  souls  the  Emperor  was  not  to  be  regarded  as 
"  judge  in  the  matter  of  our  faith,"  for  his  "  injustice  is 
undeniable,  manifest,  patent  and  notorious,  yea,  more  than 
notorious."3 

The  councillors  chose  to  deal  with  the  matter  chiefly  from 
the  point  of  view  of  canon  law,  as  is  shown  by  their  mis- 
quotations from  such  well-known  canonists  as  Panormitanus, 

1  See  vol.  ii.,  p.  391  ff. 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  64,  p.  265. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  266  ff.  ("  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  296,  dated  "  end  of  October, 
1530  "). 


ON  ARMED  RESISTANCE  57 

Innocent  IV.,  Felinus,  Baldus  de  Ubaldis  and  the  Archi- 
diacomis  (Baisius).1  In  spite  of  this  they  calmly  assumed 
the  truth  of  the  proposition,  condemned  in  canon  law,  of 
the  subordination  of  Pope  to  Council  and  of  the  right  of 
appealing  from  Pope  to  Council.  They  took  it  for  granted 
that  Luther's  doctrines  had  not  yet  been  finally  rejected  by 
the  Church,  and,  in  contradiction  with  actual  fact,  declared 
that  the  Augsburg  Reichstagsabschied  "  admitted  and 
allowed  "  that  Luther's  doctrines,  seeing  that  they  were 
supposed  to  have  been  condemned  by  previous  Councils, 
should  come  up  for  discussion  at  the  next.  As  a  matter  of 
fact  the  Reichstagsabschied  contained  nothing  of  the  sort 
"  concerning  doctrines  of  faith."2 

This  document  was  submitted  to  the  theologians  before 
they  left  Torgau,  and  their  embarrassment  was  reflected  in 
their  written  reply.  Luther  agreed  with  his  friends  that  the 
only  way  out  of  the  difficulty  was  to  put  the  whole  thing  on 
the  shoulders  of  the  lawyers.  He  and  his  party  declared 
that  they  stood  altogether  outside  the  question,  since  the 
councillors  had  already  decided  independently  of  them  in 
favour  of  armed  resistance,  on  the  ground  of  the  secular, 
Imperial  laws.  As  for  the  reasons  alleged  from  canon  law, 
he  refused  to  take  them  into  consideration.  Later  on  he  was 
glad  to  be  able  to  appeal  to  this  subterfuge,  and  declared 
that  he  "  had  given  no  counsel."3 

At  this  time,  however,  Luther,  Melanchthon  and  Jonas 
put  their  signatures  to  a  memorandum  in  which  they  sought 
to  protect  themselves  by  certain  assurances  which  make  a 
painful  impression  on  the  reader. 

It  was  true  that  hitherto  they  had  taught,  so  they  say,  "  that 
the  [secular]  authorities  must  on  no  account  be  resisted," 
but,  they  had  been  unaware  "  that  the  authorities'  own  laws, 
which  we  have  always  taught  must  be  diligently  obeyed,  sanc- 
tioned this."  They  had  also  taught,  "  that  the  secular  laws 
must  be  allowed  to  take  their  own  course,  because  the  Gospel 
teaches  nothing  against  the  worldly  law."  "  Accordingly,  now 
that  the  doctors  and  experts  in  the  law  have  proved  that  our 
present  case  is  such  that  it  is  lawful  to  resist  the  authorities,  we, 
for  our  part,  "  cannot  disprove  this  from  Scripture,  when  self- 
defence  is  called  for,  even  though  it  should  be  against  the  Emperor 
himself."    They  then  come  to  the  question  of  arming.    This  they 

1  Cp.  Enders  "  Brief  wechsel,"  8,  p.  299  f. 

2  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  249. 

3  "  Brief  wechsel,"  8,  p.  344.     See  below,  p.  00. 


58  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

declare  to  be  distinctly  practical  and  advisable,  especially  as 
"  any  day  other  causes  may  arise  where  it  would  be  essential  to 
be  ready  to  defend  oneself,  not  merely  from  worldly  motives, 
but  from  duty  and  constraint  of  conscience."  It  was  necessary 
"to  be  ready  to  encounter  a  power  which  might  suddenly 
arise."1 

The  Landgrave  of  Hesse  was  then  making  great  preparations 
for  war,  with  an  eye  on  Wurtemberg,  where,  as  he  admitted 
publicly,  he  wished  forcibly  to  re-instate  Duke  Ulrich,  a  friend  to 
the  religious  innovations. 

The  theologians  of  the  Margraviate  of  Brandenburg,  unlike 
those  of  Wittenberg,  were  opposed  to  resistance.  They  replied 
then,  or  somewhat  later,  concerning  the  views  put  forward  by 
the  lawyers,  that  it  was  a  question  of  the  supreme  secular  Majesty, 
not  of  a  judge  who  was  subservient  to  a  higher  secular  sword, 
hence  that  the  lawyers'  suppositions  could  not  stand.2  Little 
heed  was  however  paid  to  their  objection.  On  the  other  hand 
the  proposal  made  by  the  legal  consulters,  that  further  repre- 
sentations should  be  made  to  the  Emperor  regarding  the  execution 
of  the  Reichstagsabschied,  was  described  by  the  theologians  as 
"  not  expedient,"  though  it  might  be  further  discussed  at  the 
Nuremberg  Conference  on  November  11  (Martinmas).3 

Instead,  it  was  for  November  13  that  a  summons,  dis- 
patched  by  Saxony  on  October  31,  invited  a  conference  to 
meet  at  Nuremberg  to  discuss  the  matter,  and  take  the 
steps  which  eventually  led  to  the  formation  of  the  defensive 
League  of  Schmalkalden.  At  first  it  was  proposed,  that,  after 
the  Nuremberg  conference,  another  should  be  held  at  Schmal- 
kalden on  November  28,  though  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  only 
meeting  held  commenced  at  Schmalkalden  on  December  22. 

Only  now  did  it  become  apparent  that  Luther  and  his 
theologians  had,  at  least  in  the  opinion  of  the  Saxon 
politicians,  expressed  themselves  privately  much  more 
openly  in  favour  of  resistance  than  would  appear  from  the 
above  memorandum.  The  envoys  from  the  Saxon  Electorate 
appealed  with  great  emphasis  to  the  opinion  of  the  Witten- 
berg divines,  in  order  to  show  the  lawfulness  of  the  plan 
of  armed  resistance  and  the  expediency  of  the  proposed 
League.  Armed  with  this  authority  they  openly  "  defied 
our  ministers,"  wrote  Lazarus  Spengler  of  Nuremberg,  to 
Veit  Dietrich  on  February  20,   1531.     Spengler,   like  the 

1  "Briefe,"  ed.  De  Wette,  6,  p.  225.  Enders  ("  Brief wechsel," 
8,  p.  298)  gave  reasons  for  dating  it  at  the  "  end  of  October,  1530." 

2  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  249. 

3  Text  in  Enders,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  8,  p.  296  f.  For  above  date  see 
also  O.  Winckelmann,  "  Der  Schmalkaldische  Bund,  1530-1532,  und 
der  Nurnberger  Religionsfriede,"  1892,  p.  271. 


ON  ARMED  RESISTANCE  59 

Nuremberg  Councillors  and  those  of  Brandenburg,  was 
opposed  to  resistance  and  to  the  League.  He  was  surprised 
that  "  Dr.  Martin  should  so  contradict  himself."1  The  fact 
is  that  he  was  the  only  person  to  whom  Luther's  previous 
memorandum  of  March,  1530,  had  been  communicated.2 

The  Nuremberg  magistrates  appealed,  among  other 
reasons,  to  the  clear  testimony  of  Scripture  which  did  not 
sanction  such  proceedings  against  the  supreme  secular 
authority.  They  feared  the  consequences  of  a  religious  war 
for  Germany,  just  as  Luther  himself  had  formerly  done,  but, 
in  spite  of  their  adherence  to  the  new  faith,  they  were  more 
frank  and  courageous  in  their  effort  to  avert  it  than  he  on 
whose  shoulders  the  chief  responsibility  in  the  war  was  to 
rest. 

One  sentence  of  Melanchthon's,  written  in  those  eventful 
days,  singularly  misrepresents  the  true  position  of  affairs. 
To  his  friend  Camerarius,  on  January  1,  1531,  he  says  :  "  We 
discountenance  all  arming."3 

Melanchthon  also  writes  :  "  We  are  now  consulted  less 
frequently  than  heretofore  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  resist- 
ance," and  he  repeats  much  the  same  thing  on  February  15, 
1531  :  "  On  the  matter  of  the  League  no  one  now  questions 
either  Luther  or  myself."4  If  we  can  here  detect  a  faint  note 
of  wonder  and  regret,  we  may  assuredly  ask  whether  the 
very  behaviour  of  the  theologians  at  Torgau  was  not  the 
reason  of  their  advice  being  at  a  discount ;  their  dissimula- 
tion and  ambiguity  were  not  of  a  nature  to  inspire  the 
lawyers  and  statesmen  with  much  respect. 

It  was  some  time  before  this  vacillation  in  official,  written 
statements  came  to  an  end.  Some  more  instances  of  it  are 
to  be  met  with  in  the  epistolary  communications  between 
Luther  and  the  town  of  Nuremberg,  which  was  opposed  to 
the  Schmalkalden  tendencies. 

Prior  to  November  20,  1530,  the  Elector  of  Saxony  had 
addressed  himself  to  the  magistrates  of  Nuremberg  with  the 
request  that  "  they  would  make  preparations  for  resisting 
the  unjust  and  violent  measures  of  the  Emperor."  Of  this 
Veit  Dietrich  informed  Luther  from  Nuremberg  on  that  day, 

1  Enders,  "  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  298,  from  M.  M.  Mayer,  "  Spen- 
gleriana,"  1830,  p.  78. 

2  Cp.  "  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  22  ;    Mayer,  ibid.,  p.  73. 

3  "  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  469.  *  Ibid.,  p.  471. 


60  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

adding  that  the  Elector  had  rhade  a  reference  to  an  approval 
of  the  measures  of  defence  secured  from  his  "  Councillors 
and  Doctors,"  but  had  said  nothing  of  the  theologians.1 
News  was,  however,  subsequently  received  in  Nuremberg 
that  the  Saxon  envoys  present  at  Schmalkaldcn  had  boasted 
of  the  support  of  Luther  and  his  friends. 

It  was  in  consequence  of  this  that  the  Nuremberg  preacher, 
Wenceslaus  Link,  enquired  of  Luther  in  the  beginning  of 
January,  1531,  or  possibly  earlier,  whether  the  news  which 
had  reached  Nuremberg  by  letter  was  true,  viz.  that  "  they 
had  expressed  the  opinion  that  resistance  might  be  employed 
against  the  Emperor." 

Without  delay,  on  January  15,  Luther  assured  him  :  "  We 
have  by  no  means  given  such  a  counsel  "  ("  nullo  modo 
consuluimus  ").2 

By  way  of  further  explanation  he  adds  :  "  When  some  said 
openly  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  consult  the  theologians  at. 
all,  or  to  trouble  about  them,  and  that  the  matter  concerned 
only  the  lawyers  who  had  decided  in  favour  of  its  lawfulness,  I 
for  my  part  declared  :  I  view  the  matter  as  a  theologian,  but  if 
the  lawyers  can  prove  its  permissibility  from  their  laws,  I  see  no 
reason  why  they  should  not  use  their  laws  ;  that  is  altogether 
their  business.  If  the  Emperor  by  virtue  of  his  laws  determines 
the  permissibility  of  resistance  in  such  a  case,  then  let  him  bear 
the  consequences  of  his  law  ;  I,  however,  pronounce  no  opinion 
or  judgment  on  this  law,  but  I  stick  to  my  theology."  It  is  thus 
that  he  expresses  himself  concerning  the  argument  which  the 
lawyers  had,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  drawn  almost  exclusively  from 
canon  law,  the  texts  of  which  they  misread. 

He  then  puts  forward  his  own  theory  in  favour  of  the  belligerent 
nobles  of  his  party,  according  to  which  a  ruler,  when  he  acts  as  a 
politician,  is  not  acting  as  a  Christian  ("non  agit  ut  christianus"),  as 
though  his  conscience  as  a  sovereign  could  be  kept  distinct  from 
his  conscience  as  a  Christian.  "  A  Christian  is  neither  Prince  nor 
commoner  nor  anything  whatever  in  the  personal  world.  Hence 
whether  resistance  is  permissible  to  a  ruler  as  ruler,  let  them 
settle  according  to  their  own  judgment  and  conscience.  To  a 
Christian  nothing  [of  that  sort]  is  lawful,  for  he  is  dead  to  the 
world." 

"  The  explanations  [Luther's]  have  proceeded  thus  far,"  he 
concludes  this  strange  justification,  "  and  this  much  you  may 
tell  Lazarus  [Spengler,  the  clerk  to  the  Nuremberg  Council] 
concerning  my  views.  I  see  clearly,  however,  that,  even  should 
we  oppose  their  project,  they  are  nevertheless  resolved  to  offer 
resistance  and  not  to  draw  back,  so  full  are  they  of  their  own 
ideas  ;    I  preach  in  vain  that  God  will  come  to  our  assistance, 

1  Enders,  8,  p.  322.  2  "  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  344. 


ON  ARMED   RESISTANCE  61 

and  that  no  resistance  will  be  required.  God's  help  is  indeed 
visible  in  this,  that  the  Diet  has  led  to  no  result,  and  that  our 
foes  have  hitherto  taken  no  steps.  God  will  continue  to  afford 
us  His  help  ;  but  not  everyone  has  faith.  I  console  myself  with 
this  thought :  since  the  Princes  are  determined  not  to  accept  our 
advice,  they  sin  less,  and  act  with  greater  interior  assurance,  by 
proceeding  in  accordance  with  the  secular  law,  than  were  they 
to  act  altogether  against  their  conscience  and  directly  contrary 
to  Holy  Scripture.  It  is  true  they  do  not  wit  that  they  are  acting 
contrary  to  Scripture,  though  they  are  not  transgressing  the  civil 
law.    Therefore  I  let  them  have  their  way,  I  am  not  concerned." 

He  thus  disclaimed  all  responsibility,  and  he  did  so  with  all  the 
more  confidence  by  reason  of  his  sermons  to  the  people,  where 
he  continued  to  speak  as  before  of  the  love  of  peace  which 
actuated  him,  ever  with  the  words  on  his  lips  :  "  By  the  Word 
alone."  "  Christ,"  he  exclaims,  "  will  not  suffer  us  to  hurt  Pope 
or  rebel  by  so  much  as  a  hair."1 

It  was  easy  to  foresee  that  after  such  replies  from  Luther, 
Spengler  and  the  magistrates  of  Nuremberg  would  not  be  pleased 
with  him.  Possibly  Link  had  doubts  about  making  known  at 
Nuremberg  a  writing  which  was  more  in  the  nature  of  an  excuse 
than  a  reply,  since,  on  such  a  burning  question  which  involved 
the  future  of  Germany,  a  more  reliable  decision  might  reason- 
ably have  been  looked  for.  On  February  20,  fresh  enquiries  and 
complaints  concerning  the  news  which  had  come  to  Nuremberg 
of  Luther's  approval  of  organised  resistance,  reached  Veit 
Dietrich,  from  the  Council  clerk,  Spengler,  and  were  duly  trans- 
mitted to  Luther  (see  above,  p.  58  f.).  Luther  now  thought  it 
advisable,  on  account  of  the  charge  of  having  retracted  his 
previous  opinion,  to  justify  himself  to  Spengler  and  the  magis- 
trates. In  his  written  reply  of  February  15,  he  assured  the  clerk, 
that  he  "  was  not  conscious  of  such  a  retractation."  For,  to  the 
antecedent,  he  still  adhered  as  before,  viz.  that  it  was  necessary 
to  obey  the  Emperor  and  to  keep  his  laws.  As  for  the  conclusion, 
that  the  Emperor  decrees  that  in  such  a  case  he  may  be  resisted, 
this,  he  says,  **.  was  an  inference  of  the  jurists,  not  of  our  own  ; 
should  they  bring  forward  a  proof  in  support  of  this  conclusion — 
which  as  yet  they  have  not  done — ('  probationem  exspecta?nus, 
quam  non  videmus  ') — we  shall  be  forced  to  admit  that  the 
Emperor  has  renounced  his  rights  in  favour  of  a  political  and 
Imperial  law  which  supersedes  the  natural  law."  Of  the  Divine 
law  and  of  the  Bible  teaching,  which  Luther  had  formerly  advo- 
cated with  so  much  warmth,  we  find  here  no  mention.2 

The  scruples  of  the  magistrates  of  Nuremberg  were  naturally 
not  set  at  rest  by  such  answers,  but  continued  as  strong  as  ever. 

1  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  42,  p.  290,  in  the  "  Hauspostille,"  Second 
Sermon  for  the  5th  Sunday  after  Epiphany  (c.  1532). 

2  To  Lazarus  Spengler,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  54,  p.  213  ("  Brief- 
wechsel,"  8,  p.  361).  Cp.  Ludw.  Cardauns,  "  Die  Lehre  vom  Wider- 
stande  des  Volks  im  Luthertum  und  im  Calvinismus  des  16.  Jahr- 
hunderts,  Diss.,"  1903,  pp.  6-18. 


62  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

After  the  League  had  already  been  entered  into,  an  unknown 
Nuremberg  councillor  of  Lutheran  sympathies,  wrote  again  to 
the  highest  theological  authority  in  Wittenberg  for  information 
as  to  its  legality.  In  his  reply  Luther  again  threw  off  all  responsi- 
bility, referring  him,  even  more  categorically  than  before,  to  the 
politicians  :  "  They  must  take  it  upon  their  own  conscience  and 
see  whether  they  are  in  the  right.  ...  If  they  have  right  on 
their  side,  then  the  League  is  well  justified."  Personally  he  pre- 
ferred to  refrain  from  pronouncing  any  opinion,  and  this  on 
religious  grounds,  because  such  leagues  were  frequently  entered 
into  "  in  reliance  on  human  aid,"  and  had  also  been  censured  by 
the  Prophets  of  the  Old  Covenant.  Had  he  chosen,  the  distin- 
guished Nuremberger  might  have  taken  these  words  as  equivalent 
to  a  doubt  as  to  the  moral  character  of  the  League  of  Schmal- 
kalden.  Furthermore,  Luther  adds  :  "A  good  undertaking  and 
a  righteous  one  "  must,  in  order  to  succeed,  rely  on  God  rather 
than  on  men.  "  What  is  undertaken  in  real  confidence  in  God, 
ends  well,  even  though  it  should  be  mistaken  and  sinful,"  and 
the  contrary  likewise  holds  good  ;  for  God  is  jealous  of  His 
honour  even  in  our  acts.1 

The  citizens  of  Nuremberg  had,  in  the  meantime,  on 
February  19,  sent  to  the  Saxon  envoys  their  written  refusal 
to  join  the  League  of  Sehmalkalden.  The  magistrates 
therein  declared  that  they  were  still  convinced  (as  Luther 
had  been  formerly)  that  resistance  to  the  Emperor  was 
forbidden  by  Holy  Writ,  and  that  the  reasons  to  the  contrary 
advanced  by  the  learned  men  of  Saxony  were  insufficient.2 
George,  Elector  of  the  Franconian  part  of  Brandenburg, 
who  was  otherwise  one  of  the  most  zealous  supporters  of  the 
innovations,  also  refused  to  join  the  League. 

The  memorandum  in  which  Luther,  Jonas,  Bugenhagen 
and  Mclanchthon  had  declared,  in  March,  1530,  that  the 
employment  of  force  in  defence  of  the  Gospel  "  could  not  in 
any  way  be  reconciled  with  Scripture"  (above,  p.  51  f.)  was 
kept  a  secret.  Not  even  Melanchthon  himself  was  per- 
mitted to  send  it  to  his  friend  Camerarius,  though  he 
promised  to  show  it  him  on  a  visit.3  Myconius,  however, 
sent  it  from  Gotha  confidentially  to  Lang  at  Erfurt,  on 
September  19,  1530,  and  wrote  at  the  same  time  :  "I  am 
sending  you  the  opinion  of  Luther  and  Philip,  but  on 
condition  that  you  show  it  to  no  one.     For  it  is  not  good 

1  To  a  Nuremberg  burgher,  March  18,  1531,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed., 
54,  p.  221  ("  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  378). 

2  Winckelmann,  "  Der  Schmalkaldische  Bund,"  p.  91.  Cp.  Enders, 
8,  p.  361,  n.  2. 

3  "  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  22. 


ON  ARMED  RESISTANCE  63 

that  Satan's  cohorts  should  be  informed  of  all  the  secrets 
of  Christ ;  besides,  there  are  some  amongst  us  too  weak  to 
be  able  to  relish  such  solid  food."1 

In  spite  of  these  precautions  copies  of  the  "  counsel  " 
came  into  circulation.  The  text  reached  Cochlacus,  who 
forthwith,  in  1531,  had  it  printed  as  a  document  throwing 
a  timely  light  on  the  belligerent  League  entered  into  at 
Schmalkalden  in  that  year.  He  subjoined  a  severe,  running 
criticism,  a  reply  by  Paul  Bachmann,  Abbot  of  the  monastery 
of  Altenzell,  and  other  writings.2 

Cochlaeus  pointed  out,  that  it  was  not  the  Emperor  but  Luther, 
who  had  been  a  persecutor  of  the  Gospel  for  more  than  twelve 
years.  Should,  however,  the  Emperor  persecute  the  true  Gospel 
of  Christ,  then  the  exhortation  contained  in  Luther's  memorandum 
patiently  to  allow  things  to  take  their  course  and  even  to  suffer 
martyrdom,  would  be  altogether  inadmissible,  because  there 
existed  plenty  means  of  obtaining  redress  ;  in  such  a  case 
God  was  certainly  more  to  be  obeyed  than  the  Emperor  ;  any 
Prince  who  should  assist  the  Emperor  in  such  an  event  must  be 
looked  upon  as  a  tyrant  and  ravening  wolf  ;  it  was,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  duty  of  the  Princes  to  risk  life  and  limb  should  the 
Gospel  and  true  faith  of  their  subjects  be  menaced  ;  and  in  the 
same  way  the  towns  and  all  their  burghers  must  offer  resistance  ; 
this  would  be  no  revolt,  seeing  that  the  Imperial  authority  would 
be  tyrannously  destroying  the  historic  ecclesiastical  order  as 
handed  down,  in  fact,  the  Divine  order.  Luther's  desire,  Cochlacus 
writes,  that  each  one  should  answer  for  himself  to  the  Emperor, 
was  unreasonable  and  quite  impossible  for  the  unlearned.  Finally, 
he  warmly  invites  the  doctors  of  the  new  faith  to  return  to 
Mother  Church.3 

The  author  of  the  other  reply  to  Luther's  secret  memorandum 
dealt  more  severely  with  it.  Abbot  Bachmann  declares,  that  it 
was  not  inspired  by  charity  but  by  the  cunning  and  malice  of  the 
old  serpent.  "  As  long  as  Luther  had  a  free  hand  to  carry  on  his 
heresies  unopposed,  he  raged  like  a  madman,  called  the  Pope 
Antichrist,  the  Emperor  a  bogey,  the  Princes  fools,  tyrants  and 
jackanapes,  worse  even  than  the  Turks  ;  but,  now  that  he  fore- 
sees opposition,  the  old  serpent  turns  round  and  faces  his  tail, 
simulating  a  false  humility,  patience  and  reverence  for  the 
authorities,  and  says  :  '  A  Christian  must  be  ready  to  endure 
violence  from  his  rulers ! '  Yet  even  this  assertion  is  not  true 
always  and  everywhere.  ..."      Should  a  ruler  really  persecute 

1  From  the  Gotha  Cod.,  399,  fol.  139,  in  Enders,  "  Briefwechsel," 
7,  p.  242. 

2  Sammelschrift  ohne  Gesamttitel,  Dresden,  1532.  Vorne  : 
Innhalt  dieses  Buchleins.  1.  Ein  Auszug  usw.  ;  2.  Rathschlag  M. 
Luthers  an  den  Churfiirsten  von  Sachsen-;    3.  Erkliirung  usw. 

3  For  further  particulars  of  the  criticism  of  Cochlaeus,  see  Enders, 
7,  p.  242  ft 


64  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

the  Divine  teaching,  then  it  would  be  necessary  to  defend  oneself 
against  him.  "  I  should  have  had  to  write  quite  a  big  book,"  he 
concludes,-  "  had  I  wished  to  reply  one  by  one  to  all  the  sophistries 
which  Luther  accumulates  in  this  his  counsel."1 

The  League  of  Schmalkalden  and  the  Religious  Peace  of 

Nuremberg. 

The  League  of  Schmalkalden  was  first  drawn  up  and 
subscribed  to  by  Johann,  Elector  of  Saxony,  and  Ernest, 
Duke  of  Brunswick,  on  February  27,  1531.  The  other 
members  affixed  their  signatures  to  the  document  at 
Schmalkalden  on  March  29.  The  League  comprised,  in 
addition  to  the  Electorate  of  Saxony  and  the  Duchy  of 
Brunswick-Liineburg,  the  Landgraviate  of  Hesse  under 
Philip,  the  prime  mover  of  the  undertaking,  and  was  also 
subscribed  to  by  Prince  Wolfgang  of  Anhalt,  Counts  Gebhard 
and  Albert  of  Mansfeld,  and  the  townships  of  Strasburg, 
Ulm,  Constance,  Reutlingen,  Memmingen,  Lindau,  Biberach, 
Isny,  Liibeck,  Magdeburg  and  Bremen. 

A  wedge  had  been  driven  into  the  unity  of  Germany  at 
the  expense  of  her  internal  strength  and  external  develop- 
ment. What  had  been  initiated  at  Gotha  in  1526  by  the 
armed  coalition  between  Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse  and  the 
Elector  of  Saxony,  in  the  interests  of  the  religious  innova- 
tions, was  now  consummated. 

The  obligation  to  which  the  members  of  the  League  of 
Schmalkalden  pledged  themselves  by  oath  was  as  follows  : 
"  That  where  one  party  is  attacked  or  suffers  violence  for 
the  Word  of  God  or  for  causes  arising  from  it,  or  on  any 
other  pretext,  each  one  shall  treat  the  matter  in  no  other 
way  than  as  though  he  himself  were  attacked,  and  shall 
therefore,  without  even  waiting  for  the  others,  come  to  the 
assistance  of  the  party  suffering  violence,  and  succour  him 
to  the  utmost  of  his  power."  The  alliance,  which  was  first 
concluded  for  six  years,  was  repeatedly  renewed  later  and 
strengthened  by  the  accession  of  new  members. 

Luther,  for  his  part,  had  now  arrived  at  the  goal  whither 
his  steps  had  been  tending  and  towards  which  so  many  of 
the  statements  contained  in  his  letters  and  writings  had 
pointed,  inspired  as  they  were  by  a  fiery  prepossession  in 
favour  of  his  cause.    It  suited  him  admirably,  that,  when  the 

1  Cp.  the  extract  given  by  Enders,  ibid.,  244. 


ON  ARMED   RESISTANCE  65 

iron  which  had  so  long  been  heating  came  upon  the  anvil, 
he  should  remain  in  the  background,  leaving  to  the  lawyers 
the  first  place  and  the  duty  of  tendering  opinions.  In  his 
eyes,  however,  the  future  success  of  the  League,  in  view  of 
its  then  weakness,  was  still  very  doubtful.  Should  the 
Schmalkalden  conference  turn  out  to  be  the  commencement 
of  a  period  of  misfortune  for  the  innovations,  still,  thanks 
to  the  restraint  which  Luther  had  imposed  on  himself,  in 
spite  of  his  being  the  moving  spirit  and  the  religious  link 
between  the  allies,  his  preaching  of  the  Evangel  would  be 
less  compromised.  The  miseries  of  the  Peasant  War,  which 
had  been  laid  to  his  account,  the  excesses  of  the  Anabaptists 
against  public  order,  the  unpopularity  which  he  had  earned 
for  himself  everywhere  on  account  of  the  revolts  and  dis- 
turbance of  the  peace,  were  all  of  a  nature  to  make  him 
more  cautious.  There  are  many  things  to  show,  that, 
instead  of  promoting  the  outbreak  of  hostilities  in  the  days 
immediately  subsequent  to  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  he  would 
very  gladly  have  contented  himself  with  the  assurance, 
that,  for  the  present,  the  Reichstagsabschied  not  being 
capable  of  execution,  things  might  as  well  take  their  course. 
By  this  policy  he  would  gain  time  ;  he  was  also  anxious  for 
the  new  faith  quietly  to  win  new  ground,  so  as  to  demonstrate 
to  the  Emperor  by  positive  proofs  the  futility  of  any  pro- 
ceedings against  himself. 

The  wavering  attitude  of  many  of  the  Catholic  Estates 
at  Augsburg  had  inspired  him  with  great  hopes  of  securing 
new  allies.  It  there  became  apparent  that  either  much  had 
been  rotten  for  a  long  time  past  in  that  party  of  the  Diet 
which  hitherto  had  been  faithful  to  the  Pope,  or  that  the 
example  of  the  Protesters  had  proved  infectious. 

Wider  prospects  were  also  opening  out  for  Lutheranism. 
In  Wurtemberg  Catholicism  was  menaced  by  the  machina- 
tions of  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse.  There  seemed  a  chance  of 
the  towns  of  Southern  Germany  being  won  back  from 
Zwinglian  influences  and  making  common  cause  with 
Wittenberg.  Henry  the  Eighth's  failure  in  his  divorce 
proceedings  also  raised  the  hopes  of  the  friends  of  the  new 
worship  that  England,  too,  might  be  torn  away  from  the 
Papal  cause.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  Diet,  Bugenhagen 
had  been  summoned  by  the  magistrates  of  Liibeck  in  order 
to  introduce  the  new  Church  system  in  that  city. 

III.— F 


66  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

In  Bavaria  there  was  danger  lest  the  jealousy  of  the 
Dukes  at  the  growth  of  the  house  of  Habsburg,  and  their 
opposition  to  the  expected  election  of  Ferdinand  as  King, 
should  help  in  the  spread  of  schism. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  Luther's  letter  to  Ludwig  Senfl,  the 
eminent  and  not  unfriendly  musician  and  composer,  band- 
master to  Duke  William  and  a  great  favourite  at  the  Court 
of  Bavaria,  should  have  been  sent  just  at  this  time.  To 
him  Luther  was  high  in  his  praise  of  the  Court :  Since  the 
Dukes  of  Bavaria  were  so  devoted  to  music,  he  must  extol 
them,  and  give  them  the  preference  over  all  other  Princes, 
for  friends  of  music  must  necessarily  possess  a  good  seed  of 
virtue  in  their  soul.  This  connection  with  Senfl  he  con- 
tinued in  an  indirect  fashion.1 

The  best  answer  to  the  resolutions  passed  at  Augsburg 
seemed  to  the  first  leader  of  the  movement  to  lie  in  expansion, 
i.e.  in  great  conquests,  to  be  achieved  in  spite  of  all  threats 
of  violence. 

Instead  of  having  recourse  to  violence,  the  Empire,  how- 
ever, entered  into  those  negotiations  which  were  ultimately 
to  lead,  in  1532,  to  the  so-called  Religious  Peace  of  Nurem- 
berg. At  about  this  time  Luther  sent  a  missive  to  his 
Elector  in  which  his  readiness  for  a  religious  war  is  perfectly 
plain. 

The  document,  which  was  composed  jointly  with  the  other 
Wittenberg  theologians,  and  for  the  Latinity  of  which  Melanchthon 
may  have  been  responsible,  treats,  it  would  appear,  of  certain 
Imperial  demands  for  concessions  made  at  the  Court  of  the 
Elector  on  September  1,  1531,  previous  to  the  Schmalkalden  con- 
ference. These  demands  manifest  the  utmost  readiness  on  the 
part  of  the  authorities  of  the  Empire  to  make  advances.  Yet 
Luther  in  his  reply  refuses  to  acquiesce  even  in  the  proposal  that 
people  everywhere  should  be  allowed  to  receive  the  Sacrament 
under  one  kind,  according  to  the  ritual  hitherto  in  use.  We  are 
bound  to  declare  openly  and  at  all  times,  he  says,  that  all  those 
who  refrain  from  receiving  under  both  kinds  are  guilty  of  sin. 
He  continues,  referring  to  the  other  points  under  debate  : 
It  is  true  that  we  are  told  of  the  terrible  consequences  which 
must  result  should  "  war  and  rebellion  break  out,  the  collapse  of 
all  public  order  fall  like  a  scourge  upon  Germany,  and  the  Turks 
and  other  foreign  powers  subjugate  the  divided  nation.  To  this 
our  reply  is  :  Sooner  let  the  world  perish  than  have  peace  at  the 
expense  of  the  Evangel.  We  know  our  teaching  is  certain  ;  not 
a  hair's  breadth  may  we  yield  for  the  sake  of  the  public  peace. 

1  See  vol.  ii.,  p.  171  f.     "  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  277. 


ON  ARMED  RESISTANCE  67 

We  must  commend  ourselves  to  God,  Who  has  hitherto  pro- 
tected His  Church  during  the  most  terrible  wars,  and  Who  has 
helped  us  beyond  all  expectation."1 

This  argument  based  on  the  Evangel  cuts  away  the  ground 
from  under  all  Luther's  previous  more  moderate  counsels. 

The  religious  peace  of  Nuremberg  was  in  the  end  more 
favourable  to  him  than  he  could  have  anticipated.  To 
his  dudgeon,  however,  he  had  to  remain  idle  while  the 
guidance  of  the  movement  was  assumed  almost  entirely  by 
the  League  of  Schmalkalden,  the  fact  that  the  League  was  a 
military  one  supplying  a  pretext  for  dispossessing  him  more 
and  more  of  its  direction.  Already,  in  1530,  he  had  been 
forced  to  look  on  while  Philip  made  advances  to  the  sectaries 
of  Zurich  and  the  other  Zwinglian  towns  of  Switzerland,  and 
concluded  a  treaty  with  them  on  November  16  for  mutual 
armed  assistance  in  the  event  of  an  attack  on  account  of 
the  faith.  "  This  will  lead  to  a  great  war,"  he  wrote  to  the 
Elector,  "  and,  as  your  Electoral  Highness  well  knows,  in 
such  a  war  we  shall  be  defending  the  error  concerning  the 
Sacrament,  which  will  thus  become  our  own  ;  from  this  may 
Christ,  my  Lord,  preserve  your  Electoral  Highness."2 

His  apprehensions,  lest  the  good  repute  of  his  cause 
should  be  damaged  by  unjust  bloodshed,  grew,  when,  in 
1534,  the  warlike  Landgrave  set  out  for  Wurtemberg. 

It  was  a  crying  piece  of  injustice  and  violence  when  Philip 
of  Hesse,  after  having  allied  himself  with  France,  by  means 
of  a  lucky  campaign,  robbed  King  Ferdinand  of  Wurtem- 
berg and  established  the  new  faith  in  that  country  by 
reinstating  the  Lutheran  Duke  Ulrich.3 

Before  the  campaign  Luther  had  declared  that  it  was 
"  contrary  to  the  Gospel,"  and  would  "  bring  a  stain  upon 
our  teaching,"  and  that  "  it  was  wrong  to  disturb  or 
violate  the  peace  of  the  commonwealth."4  He  hinted  at 
the  same  time  that  he  did  not  believe  in  a  successful  issue  : 
"  No  wise  man,"  he  said  subsequently,  "  would  have  risked 
it."6 — Yet,  when  the  whole  country  was  in  the  hands  of  the 

1  "  Brief wechsel,"  9,  p.  76.  Enders  refers  it  to  the  "  latter  half  of 
August,  1531." 

2  On  December  12,  1530,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  54,  p.  204  ("  Brief- 
wechsel,"  8,  p.  331). 

3  Janssen-Pastor,  "  Gesch.  des  deutschen  Volkes,"  318,  p.  292  ft. 

4  "  Werke,"  Erl."  ed.,  61,  p.  332  and  Mathesius  "  Tischreden," 
p.  133.     Account  given  in  his  own  words. 

*  "  Werke,"  ibid.,  p.  334  seq. 


68  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

conqueror,  when  a  treaty  of  peace  had  been  signed  in  which 
the  articles  on  religion  were  purposely  framed  in  obscure  and 
ambiguous  terms,  while  the  prospects  of  the  new  faith, 
in  view  of  Ulrich's  character,  seemed  excellent,  Luther 
expressed  his  joy  and  congratulations  to  the  Hessian  Court 
through  Justus  Menius,  a  preacher  of  influence  :  "  We 
rejoice  that  the  Landgrave  has  returned  happily  after  having 
secured  peace.  It  is  plain  that  this  is  God's  work  ;  contrary 
to  the  general  expectation  He  has  set  our  feais  to  rest !  He 
Who  has  begun  the  work  will  also  bring  it  to  a  close.    Amen."1 

Luther  himself  tells  us  later  what  foreign  power  it  was 
that  had  rendered  this  civil  war  in  the  very  heart  of  Germany 
possible.  "  Before  he  [the  Landgrave]  reinstated  the  Duke 
of  Wurtemberg  he  was  in  France  with  the  King,  who  lent 
him  200,000  coronati  to  carry  on  the  war."2 

The  fear  of  an  impending  great  war  between  the  religious 
parties  in  Germany  was  gradually  dispelled.  The  object  of 
the  members  of  the  League  of  Schmalkalden  in  seeking 
assistance  from  France  and  England  was  to  strengthen  their 
position  against  a  possible  attack  on  the  part  of  the  Emperor ; 
at  the  same  time,  by  refusing  to  lend  any  assistance  against 
the  Turks,  they  rendered  him  powerless. 

Luther  now  ventured  to  prophesy  an  era  of  peace.  We 
shall  have  peace,  he  said,  and  there  is  no  need  to  fear  a  war 
on  account  of  religion.  "  But  questions  will  arise  concerning 
the  bishoprics  and  the  foundations,"  as  the  Emperor  is 
trying  to  get  the  rich  bishoprics  into  his  hands,  and  the 
other  Princes  likewise  ;  "  this  will  lead  to  quarrels  and 
blows,  for  others  also  want  their  share."3  This  confirms  the 
observation  made  above  :  In  place  of  a  religious  struggle 
the  Princes  preferred  to  wrangle  over  ecclesiastical  property 
and  rights,  of  which  they  were  jealous.  Thus  Luther's 
prediction  concerning  the  character  of  the  struggle  in  the 
years  previous  to  the  Schmalkalden  and  Thirty  Years'  War 
was  not  so  far  wrong. 

Luther  and  the  Religious  War  in  Later  Years. 

Luther  was  never  afterwards  to  revert  to  his  original 
disapproval  of  armed  resistance  to  the  Emperor. 

1  On  July  14,  1534,  "  Brief wechsel,"  10,  p.  63. 

2  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  134. 

3  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  362. 


ON  ARMED   RESISTANCE  69 

In  his  private  conversations  we  frequently  find,  on  the  contrary, 
frank  admissions  quite  in  agreement  with  the  above  remark  on 
"  war  and  rebellion  "  being  justified  by  the  Divine  and  in- 
destructible Evangel.  It  is  not  only  lawful,  he  says,  but  necessary 
to  fight  against  the  Emperor  in  the  cause  of  the  Evangel.  "  Should 
he  begin  a  war  against  our  religion,  our  worship  and  our  Church, 
then  he  is  a  tyrant.  Of  this  there  is  no  question.  Is  it  not  lawful 
to  fight  in  defence  of  piety  ?  Even  nature  demands  that  we  should 
take  up  arms  in  defence  of  our  children  and  our  families.  Indeed, 
I  shall,  if  possible,  address  a  writing  to  the  whole  world  exhorting 
all  to  the  defence  of  their  people."1 

Other  similar  statements  are  met  with  in  his  Table-Talk  at  a 
later  date.  "It  is  true  a  preacher  ought  not  to  fight  in  his  own 
defence,  for  which  reason  I  do  not  take  a  sword  with  me  when  I 
mount  the  pulpit,  but  only  on  journeys."2  "The  lawyers,"  he 
said,  on  February  7,  1538,  "  command  us  to  resist  the  Emperor, 
simply  desiring  that  a  madman  should  be  deprived  of  his  sword. 
.  .  .  The  natural  law  requires  that  if  one  member  injure  another 
he  be  put  under  restraint,  made  a  prisoner  and  kept  in  custody. 
But  from  the  point  of  view  of  theology,  there  are  doubts  (Matt. 
v.,  1  Peter  ii.).  I  reply,  however,  that  statecraft  permits,  nay 
commands,  self-defence,  so  that  whoever  does  not  defend  himself 
is  regarded  as  his  own  murderer,"  in  spite  of  the  fact,  that,  as  a 
Christian  and  "  believer  in  the  Kingdom  of  Christ,  he  must 
suffer  all  things,  and  may  not  in  this  guise  either  eat  or  drink  or 
beget  children."  In  many  cases  it  is  necessary  to  put  away 
"  the  Christianum  and  bring  to  the  fore  the  politicam  personam,"* 
just  as  a  man  may  slay  incontinently  the  violator  of  his  wife. 
"  We  are  fighting,  not  against  Saul,  but  against  Absalom." 
Besides,  the  Emperor  might  not  draw  the  sword  without  the 
consent  of  the  Seven  Electors.  "  The  sword  belongs  to  us,  and 
only  at  our  request  may  he  use  it."4  "  Without  the  seven  he  has 
no  power  ;  indeed,  if  even  one  is  not  for  him,  his  power  is  nil  and 
he  is  no  longer  monarch.  ...  I  do  not  deprive  the  Emperor  of 
the  sword,  but  the  Pope,  who  has  no  business  to  lord  it  and  act 
as  a  tyrant."6  "  The  Emperor  will  not  commence  a  war  on  his 
own  account  but  for  the  sake  of  the  Pope,  whose  vassal  he  has 
become  ;  he  is  only  desirous  of  defending  the  abominations  of 
the  Pope,  who  hates  the  Gospel  and  thinks  of  nothing  but  his  own 
godless  power."6 

Luther,  in  his  anger  against  the  Papists  and  the  priests,  goes 
so  far  as  to  place  them  on  a  par  with  the  Turks  and  to  advise 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  61,  p.  334,  "  Tischreden."  2  Ibid. 

3  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  363  seq. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  366  seq.  :  "  Ita  ut  nos  habeamus  gladium  traditum  posses- 
sorium.  Ccesar  vero  tantum  in  nobis  habet  gladium  petitorium,  these 
are  not  times  ut  tempore  martyrum,  ubi  Diocletianus  solus  regebat." 

6  The  passage  from  "  indeed  if  one  "  to  "  as  a  tyrant  "  was  omitted 
by  Rebenstock  in  his  Table-Talk  and  is  differently  worded  in 
the  German  Table-Talk,  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  194  f. 

6  "  Colloquia,"  I.e.,  pp.  365,  367  :  "  Papce  adimo  gladium,  non 
ccesari,  quia  papa  non  debet  esse  magistracies  neque  tyr annus" 


70  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

their  being  slaughtered  ;x  this  he  did,  for  instance,  in  May,  1540. 
In  1539  he  says  :  "  Were  I  the  Landgrave,  I  should  set  about  it, 
and  either  perish  or  else  slay  them  because  they  refuse  peace  in  a 
good  and  just  cause  ;  but  as  a  preacher  it  does  not  beseem  me 
to  counsel  this,  much  less  to  do  it  myself."2  The  Papal 
Legate,  Paolo  Vergerio,  when  with  Luther  in  1535,  expressed 
to  him  his  deep  indignation  at  the  deeds  of  King  Henry  VIII.  of 
England,  who  had  put  to  death  Cardinal  John  Fisher  and  Sir 
Thomas  More.  Luther  wrote  to  Melanchthon  of  Vergerio's 
wrath  and  his  threats  against  the  King,  but  shared  his  feelings 
so  little  as  actually  to  say  :  "  Would  that  there  were  a  few  more 
such  kings  of  England  to  put  to  death  these  cardinals,  popes 
and  legates,  these  traitors,  thieves,  robbers,  nay,  devils  incarnate." 
Such  as  they,  he  says,  plunder  and  rob  the  churches  and  are 
worse  than  a  hundred  men  of  the  stamp  of  Verres  or  a  thousand 
of  that  of  Dionysius.  "  How  is  it  that  Princes  and  lords, 
who  are  always  complaining  to  us  of  the  injury  done  to  the 
churches,  endure  it  ?  "3 

Even  in  official  memoranda  Luther  soon  threw  all  dis- 
cretion to  the  winds^  and  ventured  to  speak  most  strongly  in 
favour  of  armed  resistance. 

Such  was  the  memorandum,  of  January,  1539,  addressed 
to  the  Elector  Johann  Frederick  and  signed  at  Weimar  by 
Jonas,  Bucer  and  Melanchthon,  as  well  as  Luther.  The 
Elector  had  asked  for  it  owing  to  the  dangerous  position  of 
the  League  of  Schmalkalden,  now  that  peace  had  been 
concluded  between  the  Emperor  and  Francis  I.  of  France. 
He  had  also  enquired  how  far  the  allies  might  take  advantage 
of  the  war  with  the  Turks  ;  and  whether  they  might  make 
their  assistance  against  the  Turks  contingent  upon  certain 
concessions  being  granted  to  the  new  worship.  The  second 
question  will  be  dealt  with  later  ; 4  as  to  the  first,  whether 
resistance  to  the  Emperor  was  allowed,  the  signatories 
replied  affirmatively  in  words  which  go  further  than  any 
previous  admission. 6 

1  In  the  "  Tischreden  "  of  Mathesius  (p.  80),  Luther  says  :  "  We 
shall  never  be  successful  against  them  [the  Turks]  unless  we  fall  upon 
them  and  the  priests  at  the  right  moment  and  smite  them  dead." 
The  editor  remarks  :  "  By  this  he  can  only  mean  the  priests  in  general, 
not  those  only  of  the  two  small  bishoprics."  See  vol.  ii.,  p.  324.  Cp. 
vol.  ii.,  p.  325,  and  N.  Paulus,  "  Luther  uber  die  Totung  katholischer 
Geistlichen"  (Histor.-polit.  Blatter  147,  1911),  p.  92  ff. 

2  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  402. 

3  Commencement  of  December,  1535,  "  Brief wechsel,"  10,  p.  275  : 
"  Utinam  haberent  plures  reges  Anglice  qui  illos  occiderent.''' 

4  See  xv.,  4.    For  reply  see  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  401. 

5  "  Brief  wechsel,"  12,  p.  78,  and  Letters  ed.  by  De  Wette,  6,  p.  223. 


ON  ARMED  RESISTANCE  71 

They  had  already,  they  say,  "  given  their  answer  and  opinion, 
and  there  was  no  doubt  that  this  was  the  Divine  truth  which 
we  are  bound  to  confess  even  at  the  hour  of  death,  viz.  that 
not  only  is  defence  permitted,  but  a  protest  is  verily,  and 
indeed,  incumbent  on  all."  Here  it  will  be  observed  that 
Luther  no  longer  says  merely  that  the  lawyers  inferred  this 
from  the  Imperial  law,  but  that  God,  "  to  Whom  we  owe  this 
duty,"  commanded  that  "  idolatry  and  forbidden  worship  " 
should  not  be  tolerated.  Numerous  references  to  the  "  Word  of 
God  "  regarding  the  authorities  were  adduced  in  support  of  this 
contention  (Ps.  lxxxii.  3  ;  Exod.  xx.  7  ;  Ps.  ii.  10,  11  ;  1  Tim. 
i.  9).  It  is  pointed  out  how  in  the  Sacred  Books  the  "  Kings  of 
Juda  are  praised  for  exterminating  idolatry."  "  Every  father 
is  bound  to  protect  his  wife  and  child  from  murder,,  and  there  is 
no  difference  between  a  private  murderer  and  the  Emperor, 
should  he  attempt  unjust  violence  outside  his  office."  The  case 
is  on  all  fours  with  one  where  the  "  overlord  tries  to  impose  on 
his  subjects  blasphemy  and  idolatry,"  hence  war  must  be  waged, 
just  as  "  Constantine  fell  upon  Licinius,  his  ally  and  brother-in- 
law."  David,  Ezechias  and  other  holy  kings  likewise  risked  life 
and  limb  for  the  honour  of  God.  "  This  is  all  to  be  understood  as 
referring  to  defence."  But  "  where  the  ban  has  been  proclaimed 
against  one  or  more  of  the  allies,"  "  discord  has  already  broken 
out."  Those  under  the  ban  have  lost  "  position  and  dignity," 
and  may  commence  the  attack  without  further  ado.  Still,  "  it 
is  not  for  us  to  assume  that  hostilities  should  be  commenced  at 
once  "  ;    this  is  the  business  of  those  actually  concerned. 

Such  was  the  advice  of  Luther  and  those  mentioned  above 
to  the  Elector,  when  he  was  about  to  attend  a  meeting  of 
the  League  of  Schmalkalden  at  Frankfurt,  where  another 
attempt  was  to  be  made  to  prevent  the  outbreak  of  hostili- 
ties by  negotiations  with  the  Emperor's  ministers.  Luther 
was  apprehensive  of  war  as  likely  to  lead  to  endless  mis- 
fortunes, yet  his  notion  that  "  idolatry  "  must  be  rooted  out 
would  allow  of  no  yielding  on  his  part.  "  It  is  almost  certain 
that  this  memorandum  was  made  use  of  at  the  negotiations 
preliminary  to  the  Frankfurt  conference,  seeing  that  the 
Elector  in  the  final  opinion  he  addressed  to  his  councillors 
repeats  it  almost  word  for  word."1  The  memorandum  was 
probably  drawn  up  by  Melanchthon. 

At  that  very  time  Luther  seems  also  to  have  received 
news  from  Brandenburg  that  Joachim  II.,  the  Elector,  was 
about  to  Protestantise  his  lands.  Such  tidings  would 
naturally  make  him  all  the  more  defiant. 

1  Thus  the  editor  of  the  memorandum,  in  "  Brief wechsel,"  12,  p.  80  f., 
with  a  reference  to  the  document  in  question  in  the  Weimar  Archives, 
and  to  Seckendorf,  3,  pp.  200,  252. 


72  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

Joachim,  in  spite  of  his  sympathies  for  Lutheranism,  had 
hitherto  refrained  from  formally  embracing  it,  not  wishing 
to  come  into  conflict  with  the  Emperor.  In  1539,  however, 
he  publicly  apostatised,  casting  to  the  winds  all  his  earlier 
promises.  As  Calvin  wrote  to  Farel,  in  November,  1539, 
Joachim  had  informed  the  Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse,  his 
chief  tempter,  that  he  had  now  made  up  his  mind  to  "  accept 
the  Gospel  and  to  exterminate  Popery,"1  and  this  he  did 
with  the  best  will,  though  he  took  no  part  in  the  Schmal- 
kalden  War  against  the  Emperor.  In  his  case  politics  and 
a  disinclination  to  make  war  on  the  Emperor  were  the  de- 
termining factors. 

While  Joachim  was  still  quietly  pursuing  his  subversive 
plans  in  the  March  of  Brandenburg,  the  ever-recurring 
question  was  already  being  discussed  anew  amongst  the 
Lutherans  in  that  quarter,  viz.  whether  Luther  had  not 
previously,  and  with  greater  justice,  declared  himself 
against  resistance,  and  whether  he  was  not  therefore  hostile 
to  the  spirit  of  the  League  of  Schmalkalden. 

A  nobleman,  Caspar  von  Kokeritz,  probably  one  of  Joachim's 
advisers,  requested  Luther  to  furnish  the  Protestant  preacher  at 
Cottbus,  Johann  Ludicke,  with  a  fresh  opinion  on  the  lawfulness 
of  resistance.  The  request  was  justified  by  the  difference  between 
Luther's  earlier  standpoint — which  was  well  known  at  Cottbus 
— and  that  which  he  had  more  recently  adopted.  From  the 
difficulty  Luther  sought  to  escape  in  a  strongly  worded  letter  to 
Ludicke,  dated  February  8,  1539,  which  is  in  several  ways 
remarkable. 2 

In  this  letter  the  lawyers  and  the  Princes  again  loom  very 
large.  They  had  most  emphatically  urged  the  employment  of 
force,  and  "  very  strong  reasons  exist  against  my  opposing  this 
desire  and  plan  of  our  party."  In  his  earlier  memorandum3 
he  had  been  thinking  of  the  Emperor  as  Emperor,  but  now  he 
had  come  to  look  on  him  as  what  he  really  was,  viz.  as  a  mere 
"  hireling  "  of  the  Pope.  The  Pope  is  desirous  of  carrying  out 
his  "  diabolical  wickedness"  with  the  help  of  the  Emperor. 
"  Hence,  if  it  is  lawful  to  fight  against  the  Turks  and  to  defend 
ourselves  against  them,  how  much  more  so  against  the  Pope, 
who  is  worse?  "  Still,  he  was  willing  to  stand  by  his  earlier  opinion, 
provided  only  that  Pope,  Cardinals  and  Emperor  would  admit 
that  they  were  all  of  them  the  devil's  own  servants  ;    "  then  my 

1  Janssen,  "  Hist,  of  the  German  People,"  p.  6,  60  f. 

2  "  Brief wechsel,"  12,  p.  87  ;    "  Briefe,"  5,  p.  159. 

3  "  That  given  under  the  Elector  Johann,"  says  Luther,  i.e.  that 
of  March,  1530  (above,  p.  52),  in  which  Luther  had  declared  that  armed 
resistance  against  the  Emperor  "  can  in  no  way  be  reconciled  with 
Scripture." 


ON  ARMED   RESISTANCE  73 

advice  will  be  the  same  as  before,  viz.  that  we  yield  to  the 
heathen  tyrants."  Other  reasons  too  had  led  him,  so  he  says,  to 
discard  his  previous  opinion,  but  he  is  loath  to  commit  them  to 
writing  for  fear  lest  something  might  reach  the  ears  of  "  those 
abominable  ministers  of  Satan."  Instead,  he  launches  out  into 
biblical  proofs,  urging  that  the  "  German  Princes,"  who  together 
with  the  Emperor  governed  the  realm,  "  communi  consilio,"  had 
more  right  to  withstand  the  Emperor  than  the  Jewish  people 
when  they  withstood  Saul,  or  those  others  who,  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, resisted  the  authorities,  and  yet  met  with  the  Divine 
approval.  The  constitution  of  the  Empire  might  not  be  altered 
by  the  Emperor,  "  who  is  not  the  monarch,"  and  "  least  of  all  in 
the  devil's  cause.  He  may  not  be  aware  that  it  is  this  cause  that 
he  is  furthering,  but  we  know  for  certain  that  it  is.  Let  what  I 
have  said  be  enough  for  you,  and  leave  the  rest  to  the  teaching  of 
the  Spirit.  Let  your  exhortation  be  to  '  render  unto  the  Kaiser 
the  things  that  are  the  Kaiser's.'  Ceterum  seer  stum  meum 
mihi."1 

It  is  not  difficult  from  the  above  to  guess  the  "  secret  "  :  it 
was  the  impending  apostasy  of  the  Electorate  of  Brandenburg. 

Luther  had  already  several  times  come  into  contact  with 
Joachim  II.  The  Elector's  mother  was  friendly  with  him 
and  came  frequently  to  Wittenberg.  Concerning  her  foes 
Luther  once  wrote  to  Jonas  :  "  May  the  Lord  Jesus  give  me 
insight  and  eloquence  against  the  darts  of  Satan."2  In  his 
letter  of  congratulation  to  the  Elector  on  his  apostasy  he 
hints  more  plainly  at  the  opponents  to  whom  he  had  referred 
darkly  in  his  letter  to  Ludicke  :  "I  am  less  concerned  about 
the  subtlety  of  the  serpents  than  about  the  growl  of  the  lion, 
which  perchance,  coming  from  those  in  high  places,  may 
disquiet  your  Electoral  Highness."3 

When  the  religious  war  of  Schmalkalden  at  last  broke  out, 
the  foes  of  Wittenberg  recalled  Luther's  biblical  admo- 
nitions in  1530  against  the  use  of  arms  in  the  cause  of  the 
Gospel,  which  Cochlscus  had  already  collected  and  published. 
These  they  caused  to  be  several  times  reprinted  (1546),  with 
the  object  of  showing  the  injustice  of  the  protesters'  attitude 
by  the  very  words  of  the  Reformer,  who  had  died  just  before. 
The  Wittenberg  theologians  replied  (1547),  but  their  answer 
only  added  to  the  tangle  of  the  network  of  evasions.  As  a 
counter-blast  they  printed  Luther's   later  memoranda,  or 

1  "  Briefe,"  5,  p.  188.  The  passage  concludes  with  a  translation 
of  the  Latin  text  appended  by  a  later  hand. 

2  On  June  11,  1539,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  12,  p.  165;  "Briefe,"  5, 
p.  188. 

3  On  December  4,  1539,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  12,  p.  313;  "Briefe," 
5,  p.  233. 


74  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

"  Conclusions,"  in  favour  of  the  use  of  force,  adding  prefaces 
by   Melanchthon   and   Bugenhagen ;     where   the   prefaces 
come  to  deal  with  the  awkward  statement  made  by  Luther 
in  1530,  the  writers  have  recourse  to  the  device  of  question- 
ing its  authenticity  ;    this  Melanchthon  does  merely  inci- 
dentally,   Bugenhagen    of    set    purpose.1     'According    to 
Bugenhagen,  who,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  had  himself  assisted 
in  drawing  up  the  statement,  it  deserved  to  be  relegated 
to  the  domain  of  fiction  ;    Luther's  enemies,  he  says,  had 
fabricated  the  document  in  order  to  injure  the  Evangel. 
He  even  asserted  that  he  could  quote  Luther's  own  assur- 
ances    in    this     matter ;     according    to    Caspar    Cruciger, 
Luther  had  declared  in  his  presence  that  the  memorandum 
of  1530  had  not  "  emanated  "  from  him,  though  "  carried 
the  rounds  by  his  enemies."     Bugenhagen  was  unable  to 
understand,  so  he  says,  how  his  own  name  came  to  be  there, 
and  repeatedly  he  speaks  of  the  document  as  the  "  alleged  " 
letter.    He  also  tells  us  that  he  had  repudiated  it  as  early  as 
1531,  immediately  after  its  publication  by  Cochlseus  ;    if 
this  be  true,  then  it  is  difficult  to  explain  away  his  denial  as 
due  to  mere  forgetfulness.    His  statements  are  altogether  at 
variance  with  what  we  are  told  by  the  physician,  Matth. 
Ratzeberger,  Luther's  friend,  who  was  always  opposed  to 
the  war,  and  who,  in  his  tract  of  1552,  "  A  Warning  against 
Unrighteous    Ways,"    etc.,    blames    Bugenhagen    for    his 
repudiation  of  Luther's  authority.2     From  the  above  it  is 

1  Enders,  "  Brief wechsel,"  7,  p.  245  ff.,  where  he  gives  extracts 
from  the  publication  in  question.  According  to  him,  Luther's  friend, 
J.  Menius,  also  introduces  the  memorandum  with  the  words  :  "  An 
old  writing  said  to  be  by  the  Reverend  D.  M.  L."  "  On  self-defence," 
1547. 

2  The  tract  is  printed  by  Hortleder,  "  Von  den  Ursachen  des  deut- 
schen  Krieges,"  2,  Gotha,  1645,  p.  39  ff.,  and  the  passage  in  question 
(p.  50)  runs  :  "  D.  Pommer  and  Melanchthon  have  repudiated  D. 
Martin's  counsels  to  the  Elector  Johann  ...  in  a  public  writing, 
and  not  only  declare  that  they  are  not  D.  Martin's  but  have  condemned 
them  as  false,  and  contrary  to  the  plain  truth  of  God's  Word."  P. 
Wappler,  "  Inquisition  und  Ketzerprozesse  in  Zwickau  zur  Reforma- 
tionszeit,"  Leipzig,  1908,  p.  134,  says  :  "  Naturally  the  repudiation 
of  this  memorandum  of  Luther's  of  March,  1530,  on  the  part  of  theo- 
logians of  the  standing  of  Melanchthon  and  Bugenhagen,  who  had 
actually  sanctioned  it  themselves,  was  not  of  a  nature  to  enhance  the 
reputations  of  those  theologians  amongst  such  as  had  read  Luther's  early 
writings  on  the  behaviour  to  be  observed  towards  the  secular  authority." 
Cp.  O.  Clemen,  "  Bemerkungen  zu  Luthers  Rathschlag  an  Kurfurst 
Johann  von  Sachsen  vom  6.  Marz  1530,"  in  "  Theol.  Studien  und 
Kritiken,"  1909,  p.  471  ff. 


ON  ARMED  RESISTANCE  75 

evident  that  we  have  no  right  to  praise  Bugenhagen,  as  has 
been  done  in  modern  days,  "  for  the  fire  with  which  he  was 
wont  to  advocate  the  truth."  Regarding  Melanchthon's 
love  of  truth  we  shall  have  more  to  say  later. 

On  looking  back  over  the  various  statements  made  by 
Luther  concerning  armed  resistance,  we  cannot  fail  to  be 
struck  by  their  diversity  ;  the  testimony  they  afford  is  the 
reverse  of  favourable  to  their  author's  consistency  and 
honesty. 

By  his  very  nature  Luther  felt  himself  drawn  to  proclaim 
the  right  of  armed  resistance  in  the  cause  of  the  Evangel. 
Of  this  feeling  we  have  indications  even  at  an  early  date  in 
certain  unguarded  outbursts  which  were  repeated  at 
intervals  in  such  a  way  as  to  leave  no  doubt  as  to  his  real 
views.  Yet,  until  1530,  his  official  and  public  statements, 
particularly  to  the  Princes,  speak  quite  a  different  language. 
The  divergence  was  there  and  it  was  impossible  to  get  rid  of 
it  either  by  explanation  or  by  denial.  As  soon  as  things 
seemed  about  to  lead  inevitably  to  war,  Luther  saw  that  the 
time  had  come  to  cast  moderation  to  the  winds.  He  was 
unwilling  to  sacrifice  his  whole  life-work,  and  the  protesting 
Estates  had  no  intention  of  relinquishing  their  new  rights 
and  privileges.  Formerly  it  had  seemed  advisable  and 
serviceable  to  the  spread  of  the  Evangel  to  clothe  it  in  the 
garb  of  submissiveness  to  the  supreme  authority  of  the 
Empire  and  of  patient  endurance  for  the  sake  of  truth,  but, 
after  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  such  considerations  no  longer 
held  good.  Overcoming  whatever  hesitation  he  still  felt, 
Luther  yielded  to  the  urgings  of  the  secular  politicians. 

From  that  time  his  memoranda  assumed  a  different 
character.  At  the  commencement  of  the  change  their  word- 
ing betrays  the  difficulties  with  which  Luther  found  himself 
faced  when  called  upon  to  reconcile  his  later  with  his  earlier 
views.  It  was, .  however,  not  long  before  his  combative 
temper  completely  got  the  better  of  his  scruples  in  Luther's 
writings  and  letters. 

Nothing  is  more  unhistorical  than  to  imagine  that  his 
guiding  idea  was  "  By  the  Word  only,"  in  the  sense  of 
deprecating  all  recourse  to  earthly  weapons  and  desiring 
that  the  Word  should  prevail  simply  by  its  own  inherent 
strength.    He  had  spoken  out  his  real  mind  when  he  said,  in 


76  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

1522  :  "  Every  power  must  yield  to  the  Evangel,  whether 
willingly  or  unwillingly,"  and  again,  in  1530,  "  Let  things 
take  their  course  ...  even  though  it  come  to  war  or 
revolt."  Only  on  these  lines  can  we  explain  his  action.  His 
firm  conviction  of  his  own  Divine  mission  (below,  xvi.) 
confirms  this  assumption. 


4.   The  Turks  Without  and  the  Turks  [Papists]  Within 

the  Empire 

The  stupendous  task  of  repelling  the  onslaught  of  the 
Turkish  power,  which  had  cost  Western  Christendom  such 
great  sacrifices  in  the  past,  was,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
third  decade  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  most  pressing  one 
for  both  Hungary  and  the  German  Empire. 

Sultan  Suleiman  the  Second's  lust  for  conquest  had, 
since  1520,  become  a  subject  of  the  gravest  misgivings  in 
the  West.  With  the  help  of  his  countless  warlike  hordes  he 
had,  in  1521,  taken  Belgrad,  the  strong  outpost  of  the 
Christian  powers,  and,  after  a  terrible  struggle,  on  December 
25  of  the  following  year,  captured  from  the  Knights  of  St. 
John  the  strategically  so  important  island  of  Rhodes. 
There  now  seemed  every  likelihood  of  these  victories  being 
followed  up.  .  The  Kingdom  of  Hungary,  which  so  long  and 
gloriously  had  stemmed  the  inroads  of  the  infidel  into 
Christendom,  now  felt  itself  unable  to  cope  single-handed 
with  the  enemy  and  accordingly  appealed  to  the  Emperor 
for  help. 

At  the  Diet  of  Nuremberg,  in  1524,  the  Imperial  Abschied 
of  April  18  held  out  a  promise  of  assistance  in  the  near 
future,  and  even  instanced  tentatively  the  means  to  be 
adopted  by  the  Empire.  In  the  meantime  appeals  were  to 
be  made  to  the  other  Christian  powers  for  help,  so  that 
the  final  resolutions  concerning  the  plan  of  defence  might  be 
discussed  and  settled  at  the  Spires  Convention  on  November 
11  of  the  same  year. 

Luther  thought  it  his  duty  to  interfere  in  these  prepara- 
tions. 

Against  Assistance  for  the  Turkish  War. 

The  Diet  of  Nuremberg  had  re-enacted  the  Edict  of  Worms 
against  Luther.     It  had  requested  the  Pope  to  summon  a 


THE  TURKISH  WAR  77 

"  free,  general  Council  "  in  some  suitable  spot  in  Germany1 
"  in  order  that  good  may  not  be  overborne  by  evil,  and  that 
true  believers  and  subjects  of  Christ  may  be  brought  to  a 
firm  belief  in  a  common  faith."  Incensed  by  the  renewal  of 
the  Edict  of  Worms  against  his  doctrine  and  person,  Luther 
at  once  published  an  angry  work,  "  Zwey  keyserliche 
uneynige  und  wydderwertige  Gepott  "  (1524), 2  in  which  he 
declared  himself  against  the  granting  of  any  help  whatever 
against  the  Turks. 

He  begins  by  saying  of  the  authors  of  the  new  decree  against 
Lutheranism,  that  surely  even  "  pigs  and  donkeys  could  see  how 
blindly  and  obstinately  they  were  acting  ;  it  is  abominable  that 
the  Emperor  and  the  Princes  should  openly  deal  in  lies."  After 
a  lengthy  discussion  of  the  decree,  he  comes  to  the  question  of 
the  help  which  was  so  urgently  needed  in  order  to  repel  the 
Turks  ;  he  says  :  "  Finally  I  beg  of  you  all,  dear  Christians, 
that  you  will  join  in  praying  to  God  for  those  miserable,  blinded 
Princes,  whom  no  doubt  God  Himself  has  placed  over  us  as  a 
curse,  that  we  may  not  follow  them  against  the  Turks,  or  give 
money  for  this  undertaking  ;  for  the  Turks  are  ten  times  cleverer 
and  more  devout  than  are  our  Princes.  How  can  such  fools, 
who  tempt  and  blaspheme  God  so  greatly,  expect  to  be  successful 
against  the  Turks  ?"3 

His  chief  reason  for  refusing  help  against  the  Turks  was  the 
blasphemy  against  God  of  which  the  Princes  of  the  Empire,  and 
the  Emperor,  had  rendered  themselves  guilty  by  withstanding 
his  Evangel. 

He  declares,  "  I  would  ten  times  rather  be  dead  than  listen 
to  such  blasphemy  and  insolence  against  the  Divine  Majesty. 
.  .  .  God  deliver  us  from  them,  and  give  us,  in  His  mercy,  other 
rulers.  Amen." — The  Emperor  himself  he  charges  with  presump- 
tion for  daring — agreeably  with  age-long  custom — to  style 
himself  the  chief  Protector  of  the  Christian  faith.  "  Shame- 
lessly does  the  Emperor  boast  of  this,  he  who  is  after  all  but  a 
perishable  bag  of  worms,  and  not  sure  of  his  life  for  one  moment." 
The  Divine  power  of  the  faith  has  surely  no  need  of  a  protector, 
lie  says  ;  he  scoffs  at  him  and  at  the  King  of  England,  who  styles 
himself  Defender  of  the  Faith  ;  would  that  all  pious  Christians 
"  would  take  pity  upon  such  mad,  foolish,  senseless,  raving, 
witless  fools."4 

1  Cp.  Janssen-Pastor,  218,  p.  355  ff.  The  passage  in  question  is 
also  reprinted  in  Luther's  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  273  f.  ;  Erl.  ed., 
242,  p.  241  f. 

2  Janssen  "  Hist,  of  the  German  People  "  (Eng.  Trans.),  4,  p.  40  ff. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  41.  In  Kostlin-Kawerau  also  (1,  p.  600)  it  is  pointed 
out  that  Luther  "  warns  against  any  compliance  with  the  [Emperor's] 
call." 

4  Ibid. 


78  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

Even  in  the  midst  of  the  storm  caused  by  his  Indulgence 
Theses,  Luther  had  already  opposed  the  lending  of  any 
assistance  against  the  Turks.  A  sermon  preached  in  the 
winter  of  1518,  in  which  he  took  this  line,  was  circulated1 
by  his  friends.  When  Spalatin  enquired  of  him  in  the 
Elector's  name  whether  the  Turkish  War — for  which 
Cardinal  Cajetan  was  just  then  asking  for  help — could  be 
justified  by  Holy  Scripture,  Luther  replied,  that  the  contrary 
could  be  proved  from  many  passages  ;  that  the  Bible  was 
full  of  the  unhappy  results  of  wars  undertaken  in  reliance  on 
human  means  ;  that  those  wars  alone  were  successful  where 
heaven  fought  for  the  people  ;  that  now  it  was  impossible  to 
count  upon  victory  in  view  of  the  corruption  of  Christendom 
and  the  tyranny  and  the  hostility  to  Christ  displayed  by  the 
Roman  Church  ;  on  the  contrary,  God  was  fighting  against 
them ; 2  He  must  first  be  propitiated  by  tears,  prayer, 
amendment  of  life  and  a  pure  faith.  In  the  Resolutions  on 
the  Indulgence  Theses  we  find  the  same  antipathy  to  the 
war,  again  justified  on  similar  mystical  and  polemical 
grounds. 

His  words  in  the  Resolutions  were  even  embodied  by 
Rome  in  one  of  the  propositions  condemned  on  the  proclama- 
tion of  the  ban  :  "  To  fight  against  the  Turks  is  to  withstand 
God,  Who  is  using  them  for  the  punishment  of  our  sins."3 

When,  later,  he  came  to  approve  of  and  advocate  the  war 
against  the  Turks,  he  declared,  quite  frankly  :  "I  am  open  to 
confess  that  such  an  article  was  mine,  and  was  advanced  and 
defended  by  me  in  the  past." 

He  adds  that  he  would  be  ready  to  defend  it  even  now  were 
things  in  the  same  state  as  then. — But  where  did  he  discern  any 
difference  ?  According  to  him,  people  then,  before  he  had 
instructed  them  concerning  its  origin  and  office,  had  no  idea  of 
what  secular  authority  really  was.  "  Princes  and  lords  who 
desired  to  be  pious,  looked  upon  their  position  and  office  as  of  no 
account,   not  as  being  the  service  of   God,   and  became  mere 

1  "  Ne  susciperetur  ullo  modo  helium  huiusmodi.''''  Cp.  Luther  to 
Spalatin,  December  21,  1518,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  333. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Propos.,  34.  Denzinger,  "Enchiridion"9,  p.  178.  P.  Kalkoff, 
"  Forschungen  zu  Luthers  romischem  Prozess,"  1905,  seeks  the  actual 
source  of  the  proposition  condemned.  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  352, 
merely  quotes  the  passage  from  the  Resolutions  in  which  Luther 
incidentally  speaks  of  the  "  Great  lords  in  the  Church,"  "  who  dream 
of  nothing  but  war  against  the  Turks  [for  which  purpose  the  Pope  was 
at  that  time  imposing  taxes],  and,  instead  of  fighting  sin,  withstand 
God's  chastisement  for  sin  and  thus  resist  God  Himself." 


THE  TURKISH  WAR  79 

priests  and  monks."  But  then  he  had  written  his  "  Von  wellt- 
licher  Uberkeytt "  (1523).  Having  re-instated  the  secular 
authority,  so  long  "  smothered  and  neglected,"  he  was  loath  to 
see  it  summoned  against  the  Turks  by  the  Pope.  Besides,  he  is 
quite  confident  that  the  Pope  had  never  been  in  earnest  about 
the  Turkish  War  ;   his  real  aim  was  to  enrich  his  exchequer.1 

Luther  also  explains  that  from  the  first  he  had  been  inclined  to 
oppose  the  granting  of  any  aid  against  the  Turks  on  the  theo- 
logical ground  embodied  in  his  condemned  proposition,  viz. 
that  God  visits  our  sins  upon  us  by  means  of  the  Turks.  Here 
again  lie  will  not  admit  himself  to  have  been  in  the  wrong,  for 
Christians  must  "  endure  wrong,  violence  or  injustice  .  .  .  not 
resist  evil,  but  allow  and  suffer  all  things  "  as  the  Gospel  teaches. 
Characteristically  enough,  he  appeals  to  that  "  piece  of  Christian 
doctrine  "  according  to  which  the  Christian  is  to  offer  his  left 
cheek  to  him  who  smites  him  on  the  right,  and  leave  his  cloak  to 
the  man  who  takes  away  his  coat.  Now,  what  our  Lord  taught 
in  His  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matt.  v.  39  f.),  was  not,  as  he  had 
already  pointed  out,  a  mere  counsel  of  perfection,  but  a  real 
command  ;  but  the  "  Pope  with  his  schools  and  convents  had 
made  of  this  a  counsel  which  it  was  permissible  not  to  keep,  and 
which  a  Christian  might  neglect,  and  had  thus  distorted  the 
words  of  Christ,  taught  the  whole  world  a  falsehood,  and  cheated 
Christians."2  A  way  out  of  the  fatal  consequences  which  must 
ensue,  Luther  fancies  he  is  able  to  find  in  the  distinction  between 
the  true  Christian  and  mere  worldly  citizen  ;  it  was  not  incumbent 
on  the  latter  to  perform  everything  that  was  binding  on  the 
former. 

Previous  to  writing  his  "  Von  welltlicher  Uberkeytt,"  re- 
ferred to  above,  he  had  again  publicly  expressed  himself  as 
opposed  to  the  efforts  of  the  Empire  on  behalf  of  the  Turkish 
War  ;  though  no  longer  because  the  authorities  lacked  a 
right  sense  of  their  office,  or  because  Christ's  counsel  made 
submission  a  duty,  but  for  quite  another  reason  :  Before 
taking  any  steps  against  the  Turks  it  was  necessary  to  resist 
the  impious  dominion  of  the  Pope,  compared  with  which 
the  danger  from  the  Turks  paled  into  insignificance.  '  To 
what  purpose  is  it,"  he  wrote  in  1522,  "  to  oppose  the 
Turk  ?  What  harm  does  the  Turk  do  ?  He  invades  a 
country  and  becomes  its  secular  ruler.  .  .  .  The  Turk  also 
leaves  each  one  free  to  believe  as  he  pleases."  In  both 
respects  the  Pope  is  worse  ;  his  invasions  are  more  extensive, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  he  slays  the  souls,  so  that  "  as  regards 
both  body  and  soul  the  government  of  the  Pope  is  ten  times 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  2,  p.  108  f.  ;  Erl.  ed.,  31,  p.  34  f. 
"  On  the  Turkish  War,"  1529. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  110  =  35  f. 


80  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

worse  than  that  of  the  Turk.  ...  If  ever  the  Turks  were  to 
be  exterminated  it  would  be  necessary  first  to  begin  with  the 
Pope."  The  Christian  method  of  withstanding  the  Turks 
would  be  to  "  preach  the  Gospel  to  them."1  This  paved  the 
way  for  his  warning,  in  1524,  against  complying  with  the 
Emperor's  call  for  assistance  in  fighting  the  Turks  (above, 
p.  77). 

Such  exhortations  not  to  wage  war  against  the  Turks 
naturally  tended  to  confuse  the  multitude  to  the  last  degree. 

Incautious  Lutheran  preachers  also  did  their  share  in 
stirring  up  high  and  low  against  the  burden  of  taxes  imposed 
by  the  wars.  Hence  it  was  quite  commonly  alleged  against 
the  instigator  of  the  religious  innovations  that,  mainly 
owing  to  his  action  after  the  Diet  of  Spires,  there  was  a 
general  reluctance  to  grant  the  necessary  supplies,  though 
the  clouds  on  the  eastern  horizon  of  the  Empire  were  grow- 
ing ever  blacker.  After  the  horrible  disaster  at  Mohacz,  in 
1526,  Luther  therefore  found  it  necessary  to  exculpate  him- 
self before  the  public. 

In  Favour  of  Assistance  for  the  Turkish  War. 

Luther  gradually  arrived  at  the  decision  that  it  was  his 
duty  to  put  his  pen  at  the  service  of  the  war  against  the 
Turks. 

A  change  took  place  in  his  attitude  similar  to  that  which 
had  occurred  in  1525  at  the  time  of  the  Peasant  Rising, 
which  his  words,  and  those  of  the  Reformed  preachers,  had 
done  not  a  little  to  further. 

His  friends,  he  says  in  1529,  "  because  the  Turk  was  now  so 
near,"  had  insisted  on  his  finishing  a  writing  against  them 
which  had  already  been  commenced  ;  "  more  particularly 
because  of  some  unskilful  preachers  among  us  Germans,  who,  I 
regret  to  learn,  are  teaching  the  people  that  they  must  not  fight 
against  the  Turks."  Some,  he  writes,  also  taught,  that  "  it  was 
not  becoming  for  any  Christian  to  wield  the  sword  "  ;  others 
went  so  far  as  to  look  forward  to  the  coming  of  the  Turks  and 
their  rule.  "  And  such  error  and  malice  amongst  the  people 
is  all  placed  at  Luther's  door,  as  the  fruit  of  my  Evangel ;  in  the 
same  way  that  I  had  to  bear  the  blame  of  the  revolt  [of  the 
peasants].  .  .  .  Hence  I  am  under  the  necessity  of  writing  on 
the  matter  and  of  exculpating  us,  both  for  my  own  sake  and  for 
that  of  the  Evangel  ...  in  order  that  innocent  consciences  may 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  8,  p.  708  f.  ;    Erl.  ed.,  242,  p.  18;    "Bui 
of  the  Evening  Feed  of  our  most  Holy  Lord  the  Pope." 


THE   TURKISH  WAR  81 

not  continue  to  be  deceived  by  such  calumnies,  and  be  rendered 
suspicious  of  me  and  my  teaching,  or  be  wrongly  led  to  believe 
that  they  must  not  fight  against  the  Turks."1 

In  February,  1528,  Suleiman  II.  was  in  a  position  to 
demand  that  King  Ferdinand  should  evacuate  Buda-Pesth, 
the  capital ;  it  was  already  feared  that  his  threat  of  visiting 
Ferdinand  in  Austria  might  be  all  too  speedily  fulfilled. 
The  Sultan  actually  commenced,  in  the  spring  of  1529,  his 
great  campaign,  which  brought  him  to  the  very  walls  of 
Vienna.  The  city,  however,  defended  itself  with  such 
heroism  that  the  enemy  was  at  last  compelled  to  withdraw. 

In  April,  1529,  when  the  reports  of  the  danger  which 
menaced  Austria  had  penetrated  throughout  the  length  and 
breadth  of  Germany,  Luther  at  last  published  the  writing 
above  referred  to,  viz.  "  On  the  Turkish  War." 

The  booklet  he  dedicated  to  that  zealous  patron  of  the  Refor- 
mation, Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse.  In  it  his  intention  is  to 
teach  "  how  to  fight  with  a  good  conscience."  He  points  out 
how  the  Emperor,  as  a  secular  ruler,  must,  agreeably  with  the 
office  conferred  on  him  by  God,  protect  his  subjects  against  the 
Turks,  as  against  murderers  and  robbers,  with  the  secular  sword, 
which,  however,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  faith.  There  were 
two  who  must  wage  the  war,  Christian  and  Charles  ;  but  Christian' s 
duty  was  merely  that  of  the  faithful  everywhere  who  would  pray 
for  the  success  of  the  campaign  ;  this  was  all  that  the  believers, 
as  such,  had  to  do  ;  Charles  would  fight,  because  the  example 
of  Charles  the  Great  would  encourage  him  to  bear  the  sword 
bravely,  but  only  against  the  Turks  as  robbers  and  disturbers  of 
the  peace ;  it  would  be  no  Crusade,  such  as  had  been  undertaken 
against  the  infidel  in  the  foolish  days  of  old.  Amongst  the  most 
powerful  pages  of  the  work  are  those  in  which,  regardless  of 
flattery,  he  impresses  on  the  German  Princes  the  need  of  union, 
of  sacrifice  of  private  interests  and  of  obedience  to  the  guidance 
of  the  Emperor,  without  which  it  was  useless  to  hope  for  any- 
thing in  the  present  critical  condition  of  the  Empire.  He  scourges 
with  a  like  severity  certain  faults  into  which  Germans  were 
prone  to  fall  when  engaged  in  warfare,  viz.  to  under-estimate  the 
strength  of  the  enemy,  and  to  neglect  following  up  their  victories  ; 
instead  of  this,  they  would  sit  down  and  tipple  until  they  again 
found  themselves  in  straits.2 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  2,  p.  107  f.  ;  Erl.  ed.,  31,  p.  32  f.  "  On 
the  Turkish  War."  "  I  fear  that  Germany  will  fall  to  the  Turks. 
But  I,  poor  Luther,  am  supposed  to  be  to  blame  for  everything  ;  even 
the  Peasant  Revolt  and  the  denial  of  the  Sacrament  are  laid  to  my 
charge."  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  405.  Cp.  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed., 
62,  p.  392,  and  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  127. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  2,  p.  107  ff.  ;   Erl.  ed.,  31,  p.  32  ff. 

III.— G 


82  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

It  does  not,  however,  seem  that  these  words  of  Luther's  on 
behalf  of  the  war  against  the  Turks  raised  any  great  enthusiasm 
among  the  people. 

He  again  took  up  his  pen,  and  this  time  more  open- 
heartedly,  when,  on  October  14,  the  hour  of  Vienna's 
deliverance  came  and  the  last  assault  had  been  happily 
repulsed.  The  result  was  his  "  Heer-Predigt  widder  den 
Tiircken  "  addressed  to  all  the  Germans.  Here  he  sought 
to  instruct  them  from  Scripture  concerning  the  Turks  and 
the  approaching  Last  Day.  In  stirring,  homely  words  he 
exhorted  them  to  rise  and  lend  their  assistance,  pointing 
out  that  whoever  fell  in  the  struggle  died  a  martyr.  He 
fired  the  enthusiasm  of  his  readers  by  even  quoting  the 
examples  of  the  women  and  maidens  in  olden  Germany. 
He  also  dwelt  on  the  need  of  preserving  the  faith  in  captivity 
should  it  be  the  lot  of  any  of  the  combatants  to  be  taken 
prisoner,  and  even  exhorted  those  who  might  be  sold  as 
slaves  not  to  prove  unfaithful  by  running  away  from  their 
lawful  masters.  He  consoled  his  readers  at  the  same  time 
writh  the  thought,  to  which  he  ever  attached  such  import- 
ance, that,  after  all,  in  Turkey  the  devil  did  not  rage  nearly 
so  furiously  against  Christians  as  the  devil  at  home,  i.e.  the 
Pope,  who  was  forcing  them  to  deny  Christ.1 

We  likewise  find  attacks  on  the  Catholic  fraction  of  the 
German  nation,  mingled  with  exhortations  to  resist  the 
Turks,  in  a  Preface  he  composed  in  1530,  on  the  occasion  of 
the  republication  of  an  older  work  dating  from  Catholic 
times,  "  On  the  Morals  and  Religion  of  the  Turks."2 

The  struggle  raging  in  the  heart -of  Germany,  and  the 
opposition  of  the  Protestant  Princes  and  Estates  to  the 
Emperor  as  head  of  the  Realm,  constituted  the  greatest 
obstacle  to  any  scheme  for  united  and  vigorous  action  against 
the  Turks.  Hence  to  some  extent  Luther  was  indirectly 
responsible  for  the  growth  of  the  Ottoman  Empire.  On  one 
occasion  Luther  gave  vent  to  the  following  outburst  : 
"  Would  that  we  Germans  stood  shoulder  to  shoulder,  then 
it  would  be  easy  for  us  to  resist  the  Turk.  If  we  had  50,000 
foot  and  10,000  horse  constantly  in  the  field  ...  we  could 

1  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  2,  p.  160  ff.  =  80  ff.  The  Turk  as  a 
"Maker  of  Martyrs,"  p.  175  =  96. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  2,  p.  205  ff.  ;  Erl.  ed.,  65,  p.  248  ff. 
"  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  7,  p.  514  seq. 


THE   TURKISH   WAR  83 

well  withstand  them  and  defend  ourselves-."1  "  The  Sultan 
had,  long  before,  taken  into  his  calculations  the  dissensions 
created  by  Luther  in  the  Empire."2  On  one  occasion,  about 
1532,  as  we  know  from  Luther's  "  Talk  Table,"  Suleiman  made 
enquiries  of  a  German  named  Schmaltz,  who  was  attached 
to  an  embassy,  concerning  Luther's  circumstances,  and  asked 
how  old  he  was.  To  the  answer  that  he  was  forty-eight 
years  of  age  he  replied  :  "I  would  he  were  still  younger, 
for  he  would  find  a  gracious  master  in  me."  Luther, 
when  this  was  reported  to  him,  made  the  sign  of  the  cross 
and  said  :  "  May  God  preserve  me  from  such  a  gracious 
master."3 

Luther,  as  we  shall  see  below,  had  occasion  to  write 
against  the  Turks  even  at  a  later  date.  His  writings  had, 
however,  no  widespread  influence ;  they  were  read  only  by 
one  portion  of  the  German  nation,  being  avoided  by  the  rest 
as  works  of  an  arch-heretic.  Many  marvelled  at  his  audacity 
in  presuming  to  teach  the  whole  nation,  and  at  his  speaking 
as  though  he  had  been  the  leader  of  the  people.  Catholics 
were  inclined,  as  Luther  himself  complains,  to  regard  the 
growth  of  the  Turkish  power  as  God's  chastisement  for  the 
apostasy  of  a  part  of  Germany  and  for  the  Emperor's 
remissness  in  the  matter  of  heresy. 

Even  in  his  very  tracts  against  the  Turks,  Luther  did  much 
to  weaken  the  force  of  his  call  to  arms.  His  aim  should 
have  been  to  inspire  the  people  with  enthusiasm  and  a 
readiness  to  sacrifice  themselves,  which  might,  in  turn,  have 
encouraged  and  fired  the  nobles  ;  but,  as  the  experience  of 
earlier  ages  had  already  proved,  religion  alone  was  able  to 
produce  such  a  change  in  the  temper  of  a  nation.  Protection 
for  the  common,  spiritual  heritage,  defence  of  the  religion 
and  civilisation  of  the  West,  such  was  the  only  appeal  which 
could  have  fired  people's  minds.  And  it  was  this  banner 
which  the  Church  unfurled,  both  before  and  after  Luther's 
day,  which  had  led  to  victory  at  the  battle  of  Lepanto 
and  again  at  the  raising  of  the  siege  of  Vienna.  Luther, 
on  the  contrary,  in  his  writing  of  1529,  repels  so  vehemently 
any  idea  of  turning  the  contest  with  the  infidel  into  a 
crusade,  that  he  even  has  it  that,  "  were  I  a  soldier  and 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  396  f.     -Table-Talk." 

2  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  283. 

3  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  397. 


84  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

descried  on  the  field  of  battle  a  priestly  banner,  or  one 
bearing  a  cross,  or  even  a  crucifix,  I  would  turn  and  run  as 
though  the  devil  were  at  my  heels  ;  and,  if,  by  God's 
Providence,  they  nevertheless  gained  the  victory,  still  I 
should  take  no  share  in  the  booty  or  the  triumph."1 

To  insure  a  favourable  issue  to  the  campaign  it  was  also 
necessary  that  the  position  of  the  Emperor  as  head  of 
Christendom  should  be  recognised,  and  the  feeling  of  common 
interest  between  the  sovereigns  and  nations  be  kindled 
anew.  Yet  the  progress  of  the  innovations,  and  Luther's 
own  menacing  attitude  towards  the  Empire  and  the  Catholic 
sovereigns,  was  contributing  largely  to  shatter  both  the 
authority  of  the  Empire  and  the  old  European  unity,  not  to 
speak  of  the  injury  done  to  the  Papal  authority,  to  wThose 
guidance  the  common  welfare  of  Christendom  had  formerly 
been  confided. 

Luther  allowed  his  polemics  to  blunt  entirely  the  effect  of 
his  summons.  As,  however,  what  he  says  affords  us  an 
insight  into  the  working  of  his  mind,  it  is  of  interest  to  the 
psychologist. 

In  the  second  of  the  two  writings  referred  to  above,  the  "  Heer- 
Predigt,"  despite  the  general  excellence  of  its  contents,  the 
constant  harping  on  the  nearness  of  the  Last  Day  could  not  fail 
to  exert  an  influence  the  reverse  of  that  desired.  At  the  very 
commencement  he  ventilates  his  views  on  the  prophecies  of 
Daniel  ;  he  likewise  will  have  it  that  the  prophecy  concerning  Gog 
and  Magog  in  Ezechiel  also  refers  to  the  Turks,  and  that  we  even 
Tead  of  them  in  the  Apocalypse  ;  their  victories  portended  the 
end  of  all  things.  His  last  warnings  run  as  follows  :  "In  the 
end  it  will  come  about  that  the  devil  will  attack  Christendom 
with  all  his  might  and  from  every  side.  .  .  .  Therefore  let  us 
watch  and  be  valiant  in  a  firm  faith  in  Christ,  and  let  each  one  be 
obedient  to  the  authorities  and  see  what  God  will  do,  leaving 
things  to  take  their  course  ;  for  there  is  nothing  good  to  be  hoped 
for  any  more."2  Such  pessimism  was  scarcely  calculated  to 
awaken  enthusiasm. 

Nor  does  he  conceal  his  fears  lest  a  successful  campaign  against 
the  Turks  should  lead  the  Emperor  and  the  Catholic  Princes  to 
turn  their  arms  against  the  Evangelicals,  in  order  to  carry  out 
the  Edict  of  Worms.  He  so  frequently  betrays  this  apprehension 
that  we  might  almost  be  led  to  think  that  he  regarded  the 
Turkish  peril  as  a  welcome  impediment,  did  we  not  know  on  the 

i  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  2,  p.  115;  Erl.  ed.,  31,  p.  40.  "On 
the^Turkish  War." 

2  Ibid.,  p.  196  =  119.  Cp.  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden  "  {ed.  Kroker), 
p.  149  :   "  Ego  credo  Turcicum  regnum  non  posse  vi  opprimi  "  (a.  1540). 


THE   TURKISH  WAR  85 

other  hand  how  greatly  he  came  to  dread  it  as  he  advanced  in 
years.  This  anxiety  concerning  possible  intentions  of  the 
Catholics  he  felt  so  keenly  in  1529  as  to  append  to  the  second  of 
his  tracts  on  the  Turkish  War  a  peculiarly  inappropriate  monition, 
viz.  that  Germans  "  must  not  allow  themselves  to  be  made  use 
of  against  the  Evangel,  or  fight  against  or  persecute  Christians  ; 
for  thus  they  would  become  guilty  of  innocent  blood  and  be  no 
better  than  the  Turks.  ...  In  such  a  case  no  subject  is  in  the 
least  bound  to  obey  the  authorities,  in  fact,  where  this  occurs, 
all  authority  is  abrogated."1 

Injudicious  considerations  such  as  these  are  also  to  be  found 
in  the  earlier  tract ;  here,  however,  what  is  most  astonishing  is 
his  obstinacy  in  re-affirming  his  earlier  doctrine,  already  con- 
demned by  Rome,  viz.  that  it  was  not  becoming  in  Christians,  as 
such,  to  resist  the  Turk  by  force  of  arms,  seeing  that  God  was 
using  the  Turks  for  the  chastisement  of  Christendom.  "As  we 
refuse  to  learn  from  Scripture,"  he  says,  speaking  in  his  wonted 
mystical  tone,  "  the  Turk  must  teach  us  with  the  sword,  until 
we  learn  by  sad  experience  that  Christians  must  not  fight  or 
resist  evil.  Fools'  backs  must  be  dusted  with  the  stick."2  He 
also  expresses  his  misgivings  because  "  Christians  and  Princes  are 
so  greatly  urged,  driven  and  incited  to  attack  the  Turks  and  fall 
upon  them,  before  we  have  amended  our  own  lives  and  begun 
to  live  as  true  Christians  "  ;  on  this  account  "  war  was  not  to  be 
recommended."3  Real  amendment  would  have  consisted  in 
accepting  the  Lutheran  Evangel.  Yet,  instead  of  embracing 
Lutheranism,  "  our  Princes  are  negotiating  how  best  to  molest 
Luther  and  the  Evangel  ;  there,  surely,  is  the  real  Turk."4 
Because  they  had  ordered  fasts,  and  penitential  practices,  and 
Masses  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  order  to  implore  God's  protection 
against  the  Turk,  the  Catholic  Princes  drew  down  upon  them- 
selves the  following  rebuke  :  "  Shall  God  be  gracious  to  you, 
faithless  rulers  of  unfortunate  subjects  !  What  devil  urges  you 
to  make  such  a  fuss  about  spiritual  matters,  which  are  not 
your  business,  but  concern  God  and  the  conscience  alone,  and  to 
do  the  work  God  has  committed  to  you  and  which  does  concern 
you  and  your  poor  people,  so  lazily  and  slothfully  even  in  this 
time  of  the  direst  need,  thus  merely  hindering  those  who  would 
fain  give  you  their  help  ?  "5 

Here  again  he  was  promoting  dissension,  indeed,  generally 
speaking,  his  exhortations  were  more  a  hindrance  than  a  help  ; 
again  and  again  he  insists  on  entangling  himself  anew  in  his 
polemics  against  Popery,  and  this  in  spite  of  the  urgent  needs  of 
Germany.     Led  by  the  Pope,  the  Catholic  Princes  have  become 

1  "  Werke,"  ibid.,  p.  197-121. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  113  =  39.  Even  the  taking  of  Rome  in  1527  proves  the 
proposition  which  the  Pope  had  condemned.  "  Christ  has  determined 
to  teach  them  to  understand  my  Article,  that  Christians  must  not 
fight  ;   the  condemned  Article  is  now  avenged  "  (p.  115  =  41). 

3  Ibid.,  p.  111  =  36. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  148  =  79.    At  the  Diet  of  Spires  in  1529. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  148  =  79. 


86  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

"  our  tyrants,"  who  "  imprison  us,  exercise  compulsion,  banish 
and  burn  us,  behead  and  drown  us  and  treat  us  worse  than  do 
the  Turks."1 

"  In  short,  wherever  we  go,  the  devil,  our  real  landlord,  is  at 
home.  If  we  visit  the  Turk,  we  find  the  devil  ;  if  we  remain 
under  the  rule  of  the  Pope,  we  fall  into  hell.  There  is  nothing 
but  devils  on  either  side  and  everywhere."  Thus  it  must  be  with 
mankind,  he  says,  referring  to  2  Timothy  iii.  1,  when  the  world 
reaches  its  end.2 

In  "  what  manner  I  advise  war  on  the  Turk,  this  my  booklet 
shall  be  witness."3 

Cochlseus,  Luther's  opponent,  collected  the  contradictions 
contained  in  the  latter's  statements  on  the  Turkish  War,  and 
published  them  in  1529  at  Leipzig  in  the  form  of  an  amusing 
Dialogue.  In  this  work  one  of  the  characters,  Lutherus,  attacks 
the  war  in  Luther's  own  words,  the  second,  Palinodus,  defends 
it,  again  with  Lutheran  phrases,  whilst  an  ambassador  of  King 
Ferdinand  plays  the  part  of  the  interested  enquirer.  The  work 
instances  fifteen  "  contradictions."4 

Luther  personally  acted  wisely,  for  it  was  of  the  utmost 
importance  to  him  to  destroy  the  impression  that  he  stood 
in  the  way  of  united  action  against  the  Turks.  This  the 
Princes  and  Estates  who  protested  at  the  Diet  of  Spires 
were  far  less  willing  to  do.  They  cast  aside  all  scruple  and 
openly  refused  to  lend  their  assistance  against  the  Turks 
unless  the  enactment  against  the  religious  innovations  were 
rescinded.     It  is  true  that  Vienna  was  then  not  yet  in  any 

1  "  Werke,"  p.  195  =  118.  This  he  continued  to  assert  to  the  very  end 
of  his  life.  In  1545  he  writes  :  "  The  Turk  also  seduces  the  world, 
but  he  does  not  sit  in  the  Temple  of  God,  does  not  take  the  name  of 
Christ  and  St.  Peter  .  .  .  but  this  destroyer  in  our  midst  pretends  to 
be  a  friend,  wants  to  be  styled  father,  and  is  twice  as  bad  as  the  Turk. 
This  is  the  abomination  of  desolation,"  etc.  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed., 
262,  p.  211.     "Wider  das  Bapstum  zu  Rom,  vom  Teuffel  gestifft." 

2  Ibid.,  p.  195-119. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  148  =  79.  It  is  impossible  to  concur  in  the  unconditional 
praise  usually  bestowed  upon  Luther  by  Protestants  on  account  of  his 
attitude  in  the  midst  of  the  Turkish  peril.  It  was  even  said  that  he  gave 
expression  in  powerful  language,  and  without  any  thought  of  personal 
interest,  to  what  God  required  "  of  every  Christian  and  every  German  " 
in  this  emergency.  Nor  is  it  correct  to  state  "  that  the  contradic- 
tion with  his  later  views  was  merely  apparent  "  when  he  expressed 
himself  at  first  as  against  the  campaign.  How  real  the  contradiction 
is  can  be  seen  not  only  from  the  above  and  from  what  follows,  but 
also  from  his  later  recommendations  based  on  religious  motives  in 
favour  of  the  war.  Thus  he  says  in  the  "  Vermanunge  zum  Gebet 
wider  den  Turcken  "  of  the  year  1541  (see  vol.  v.,  xxxiv.  2)  :  "  We  are 
fighting  to  preserve  God's  Word  and  His  Church,"  etc.  ("  Werke  " 
Erl.  ed.,  32,  p.  95  f.). 

*  "  Dialogus  de  bello  contra  Turcas,  in  antilogias  Lutheri." 


THE  TURKISH  WAR  87 

pressing  danger,  though,  on  the  other  hand,  news  had  been 
received  at  Spires  that  the  Turkish  fleet  was  cruising  off  the 
coasts  of  Sicily.  It  was  only  later  on  in  the  year,  when  the 
danger  of  Austria  and  for  the  German  Princes  began  to 
increase,  that  the  Protesters  showed  signs  of  relenting. 
They  also  saw  that,  just  then,  their  refusal  to  co-operate 
would  be  of  no  advantage  to  the  new  Church.  Landgrave 
Philip  of  Hesse  nevertheless  persisted  in  his  obstinate 
refusal  to  take  any  part  in  the  defence  of  the  Empire. 

Philip  made  several  attempts  to  induce  Brtick,  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Saxon  Electorate,  and  Luther,  to  bring 
their  influence  to  bear  on  the  Elector  Johann  Frederick  so 
that  he  might  take  a  similar  line.  Brtick  was  sufficiently 
astute  to  avoid  making  any  promise.  Luther  did  not 
venture  openly  to  refuse,  though  his  position  as  principal 
theological  adviser  would  have  qualified  him  to  explain  to 
the  Landgrave  the  error  of  his  way.  In  his  reply  he  merely 
finds  fault  with  the  "  Priesthood,"  who  '*  are  so  obstinate 
and  defiant  and  trust  in  the  Emperor  and  in  human  aid." 
God's  assistance  against  the  Turks  may  be  reckoned  on,  but 
if  it  came  to  the  point,  and  he  were  obliged  to  speak  to  the 
Elector,  he  would  "  advise  for  the  best,"  and,  may  God's 
Will  be  done.1 

When  the  Turks,  in  order  to  avenge  the  defeat  they  had 
suffered  before  the  walls  of  Vienna,  prepared  for  further 
attacks  upon  the  West,  frightful  rumours  began  to  spread 
throughout  Germany,  adding  greatly  to  Luther's  trouble  of 
mind.  At  the  Coburg,  where  he  then  was,  gloomy  fore- 
bodings of  the  coming  destruction  of  Germany  at  the  hand 
of  the  Turk  associated  themselves  with  other  disquieting 
considerations. 

In  one  of  his  first  letters  from  the  Coburg  he  says  to  Melanch- 
thon,  Spalatin  and  Lindemann,  who  were  then  at  the  Diet  of 
Augsburg  :  "  My  whole  soul  begins  to  revolt  against  the  Turks 
and  Mohammed,  for  I  see  the  intolerable  wrath  of  Satan  who 
rages  so  proudly  against  the  souls  and  bodies  of  men.  I  shall 
pray  and  weep  and  never  rest  until  heaven  hears  my  cry.  You 
[at  Augsburg]  are  suffering  persecution  from  our  monsters  at 
home,  but  we  have  been  chosen  to  witness  and  to  surfer  both 
woes  [viz.  Catholicism  and  the  Turks]  which  are  raging  together 
and  making  their  final  onslaught.     The  onslaught  itself  proves 

1  On  December  16,  1529,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  7,  p.  205.  For  Brack's 
reply,  cp.  Hassencamp,  "  Hessische  Kirchengesch.,"  1,  p.  215,  1. 


88  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

and  foretells  their  approaching  end  and  our  salvation."1 — "'All 
we  now  await  is  the  coming  of  Christ,"  so  he  says  on  another 
occasion  in  one  of  his  fits  of  fear  ;  "  verily,  I  fear  the  Turk  will 
traverse  it  [Germany]  from  end  to  end.  .  .  .  How  often  do  I 
think  of  the  plight  of  our  German  land,  how  often  do  I  sweat, 
because  it  will  not  hear  me."2 

Lost  in  his  eschatological  dream  and  misled  by  his  morbid 
apprehension,  he  wrote  his  Commentary  on  Ezechiel  xxxviii.- 
xxxix.,  which  was  at  once  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  printer  ; 
here  again  he  finds  the  mischief  to  be  wrought  by  the  Turks  at 
the  end  of  the  world  as  plainly  foretold  as  in  the  prophecy  of 
Daniel,  the  Commentary  on  which  he  had  published  shortly 
before. 3 

Everywhere  anxiety  reigned  supreme,  for  there  were 
lacking  both  preparedness  and  unanimity.  The  Catholic 
Princes  of  the  Empire  were  not  much  better  than  the  rest. 
Petty  interests  and  jealousies  outweighed  in  many  instances 
a  sense  of  the  common  needs.  At  Spires,  for  instance,  Duke 
George  of  Saxony  stipulated,  as  a  condition  of  any  promise 
of  assistance,  that  he  should  be  given  precedence  over  both 
the  Dukes  of  Bavaria.  While  the  Catholic  Estates  agreed, 
at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  to  the  grants  for  the  war  against 
the  Turks,  the  Protestant  Estates  were  not  to  be  induced  to 
give  a  favourable  decision  until  the  Emperor  had  sanctioned 
the  so-called  religious  Peace  of  Nuremberg  in  1532. 4 

In  the  summer  of  that  same  year  Suleiman  passed  Buda- 
Pesth  with  300,000  men.  Thence  he  continued  his  march 
along  the  Danube  with  the  intention  of  taking  Vienna,  this 
time  at  any  cost.  The  Emperor  Charles  V.  hurried  i»  person 
to  command  the  great  army  which  was  collecting  near 
Vienna  ;  the  Sultan  was  to  be  encountered  and  a  decisive 
battle  fought.  Throughout  the  Empire  the  greatest  en- 
thusiasm for  the  cause  prevailed.  The  Electoral  Prince, 
Joachim  of  Brandenburg,  was  nominated  by  the  Emperor 
to  the  command  of  the  troops  of  the  Saxon  lowlands, 
since  this  country  had  not  been  unanimous  in  the  choice  of 
a  Captain,  probably  owing  to  the  religious  dissensions. 

1  To  Melanchthon,  April  23,  1530,  "  Brief wechsel,"  7,  p.  303.  At  the 
end  are  greetings  to  the  two  other  friends  referred  to.  The  latter 
would  inform  the  Elector  of  the  anxieties  and  prayers  of  the  writer. 

2  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  396. 

3  On  Ezechiel  xxxviii.-xxxix.,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  2,  p.  219  ff., 
Erl.  ed.,  41,  p.  220  ff.     Cp.  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  200. 

4  Cp.  A.  Westermann,  "  Die  Tiirkenhilfe  und  die  politisch- 
kirchlichen  Parteien  auf  dem  Reichstag  zu  Regensburg  1532,"  Heidel- 
berg, 1910. 


THE   TURKISH  WAR  89 

The  Protestant  Prince  Joachim  requested  a  pious  letter 
from  Luther.  This  Luther  sent  him,  promising  him  his 
prayers,  and  saying  that  "  he  would  take  the  field  in  spirit 
with  his  dear  Emperor  Carol  [as  he  now  calls  him],  and 
fight  under  his  banner  against  Satan  and  his  members." 
He  prayed  God  to  bestow  on  them  all  "a  glad  spirit," 
granting  them  not  to  trust  in  their  own  strength,  but  to 
fight  with  the  "  fear  of  God,  trusting  in  His  Grace  alone," 
and  to  ascribe  the  honour  to  heaven  only  ;  hitherto  there 
had  been  too  much  of  the  "  spirit  of  defiance  on  both  sides," 
and  each  party  had  gone  into  the  field  "  without  God," 
"  which  on  every  occasion  had  been  worse  for  the  people  of 
God  than  for  the  enemy."  Luther  was  evidently  quite 
incapable  of  writing  on  the  subject  without  his  polemical 
ideas  casting  their  shadow  over  his  field  of  vision. 

The  Turks  did  not  venture  to  give  battle,  but,  to  the  joy 
of  the  Christian  army,  retreated,  laying  waste  Styria  on 
their  march.  The  Imperial  troops  were  disbanded  and  an 
armistice  was  concluded  between  King  Ferdinand  and 
Suleiman.  But  in  1536  the  hostilities  were  renewed  by  the 
Turks  ;  Hungary  was  as  good  as  lost,  and  in  1537  Ferdinand's 
army  suffered  in  Slavonia  the  worst  reverse,  so  at  least 
Luther  was  informed,  since  the  battle  of  Mohacz  in  1526.  On 
the  strength  of  a  rumour  he  attributed  the  misfortune  to 
the  treason  of  the  Christian  generals.  In  his  conversations 
he  set  down  the  defeat  to  the  account  of  Ferdinand,  his 
zealous  Catholic  opponent ;  he  had  permitted  "  such  a 
great  and  powerful  army  to  be  led  miserably  into  the  jaws 
of  the  Turks."1  Ferdinand,  the  Emperor's  brother,  was,  of 
course,  to  blame  for  the  unfortunate  issue  of  the  affair  ; 
"  hitherto  the  Turk  has  been  provoked  by  Ferdinand  and 
has  been  victorious  ;  when  he  comes  unprovoked,  then  he 
will  succumb  and  be  defeated  ;  if  the  Papists  commence 
the  war  they  will  be  beaten."2  "  Luther  saw  in  the  mis- 
fortune of  King  Ferdinand  a  just  punishment  on  him 
and  his  friends  who  angered  God  and  worshipped  lies."3 
He  believed  the  cause  of  the  success  of  the  Turks  to  be 
the  "  great  blasphemy  of  the  Papists  against  God  and  the 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  389.  Cp.  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1, 
p.  405,  concerning  the  news  of  an  impending  attack  by  the  Turks  in 
1538  :  "I  look  upon  it  as  a  fresh  invention  of  Ferdinand's  ;  he  is 
planning  another  tax  such  as  he  devised  before »" 

2  Ibid.,  p.  401.  3  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  401. 


90  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

abominable  sin  against  one  and  the  other  Table  of  the 
Commandments  of  God  "  ;  also  "  the  great  contempt  of 
God's  Word  amongst  our  own  people."1 

While  the  Protestant  Princes  and  cities  again  showed  a 
tendency  to  exploit  the  Turkish  peril  to  the  advantage  of 
the  religious  innovations,  Luther,  in  view  of  the  needs  of  the 
time,  pulled  himself  together  and,  when  consulted,  openly 
advised  the  Elector  Johann  Frederick  to  give  his  assistance 
against  the  Turks  should  this  be  asked  of  him.  (May  29, 
1538. 2) 

He  writes  to  the  Elector  :  "  '  Necessitas  '  knows  no  '  legem,' 
and  where  there  is  necessity  everything  that  is  termed  law, 
treaty  or  agreement  ceases.  .  .  .  We  must  risk  both  good  and 
evil  with  our  brothers,  like  good  comrades,  as  man  and  wife, 
father  and  children  risk  all  things  together."  "  Because  many 
pious  and  honest  people  will  also  have  to  suffer,"  it  was  meet 
that  the  Prince  should,  "  with  a  good  conscience,  render  assistance 
in  order  to  help  and  protect,  not  the  tyrants,  but  the  poor  little 
flock." 

Yet,  immediately  after,  he  deprives  his  counsel  of  most  of  its 
weight  by  declaring  in  fatalistic  language,  that  there  was  never- 
theless little  to  be  hoped  for,  since  God  "  had  fashioned  the  rod 
which  they  will  not  be  able  to  resist." 

He  tells  him  concerning  King  Ferdinand,  "  that  there  was 
nothing  to  be  anticipated  from  him,  but  only  trouble  and  inevit- 
able misfortune  "  ;  of  the  Catholics  in  general  he  assures  him, 
that  their  "  blasphemy  "  against  the  Evangel  and  their  resistance 
to  "  their  conscience  and  the  known  truth  "  made  it  impossible 
for  them  to  escape  a  "  great  chastisement,"  since  "  God  liveth 
and  reigneth." 

Again,  as  though  desirous  of  deterring  the  Elector  on  personal 
grounds,  he  reminds  him  that  they  (the  "  tyrants  "  as  he  calls 
the  Princes  of  the  Catholic  party)  "  had  not  so  far  even  requested 
assistance,  and  had  not  been  willing  to  agree  to  peace  though  the 
need  was  so  great."3  He  also  thoughtfully  alludes  to  the  danger 
lest  the  tyrants,  after  having  secured  a  victory  with  the  help  of 
the  Protestants,  should  make  use  of  their  arms  to  overthrow  the 
Evangel  by  force  :  "  We  must  be  wary  lest,  should  our  adversaries 
vanquish  the  Turks — which  I  cannot  believe  they  will — they 
then  turn  their  arms  against  us,"  "  which  they  would  gladly 
do  "  ;  but,  he  adds,  "  it  rests  in  God's  hands  not  in  their  desire, 
what  they  do  to  us,  or  what  we  are  to  surfer,  as  we  have  experi- 
enced so  far,"  for  instance  after  the  retreat  of  the  Turks  from 
Vienna  when,  "  after  all,  nothing  was  undertaken  against  us  "  ; 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  393. 

2  Ibid.,  55,  p.  202  ("  Brief wechsel,"  11,  p.  370). 

3  On  Ferdinand's  reason  for  not  seeking  the  Elector's  help,  see 
Enders  on  the  letter  referred  to,  p.  371. 


TURKS  AND   PAPISTS  91 

for  the  people  would  refuse  to  follow  them  in  any  attack  upon  the 
Evangel. 

This  letter,  which  has  frequently  been  appealed  to  by 
Protestants  as  a  proof  of  Luther's  pure,  unselfish  patriotism, 
is  a  strange  mixture  of  contradictory  thoughts  and  emotions, 
the  product  of  a  mind  not  entirely  sure  of  its  ground  and 
influenced  by  all  sorts  of  political  considerations.  Of  one 
thing  alone  was  the  writer  certain,  viz.  that  the  Turk  at 
Rome  must  be  fought  against  relentlessly. 

Luther's  "Table-Talk"  and  occasional  letters  supply 
various  traits  to  complete  the  above  picture  of  his  attitude 
towards  the  Turkish  War.  There  we  find  polemical  out- 
bursts interspersed  with  excellent  admonitions  to  prayer,1 
confutations  of  the  errors  of  the  Turks,  and  lamentations  on 
the  judgment  of  God  as  displayed  in  these  wars. 

Luther  on  Turks  and  Papists. 

"  If  Germany  had  a  master,"  he  says  very  aptly  on  one  occa- 
sion, "  it  would  be  easy  for  us  to  withstand  the  Turk  "  ;  but,  he 
continues,  "  the  Papists  are  our  worst  foes,  and  would  prefer  to 
see  Germany  laid  waste,  and  this  the  Turk  is  desirous  of  doing."2 
The  Papists  are  actually  trying  to  establish  the  domination  of 
the  Turk.  "  The  Pope,"  so  he  was  informed,  "  refuses,  like  the 
King  of  France,  to  grant  any  assistance  to  the  Emperor  against 
the  Turks.  See  the  enormities  of  our  day  !  And  yet  this  is  the 
money  [which  the  Pope  refused  to  give]  that  the  Popes  have  been 
heaping  up  for  so  many  long  ages  by  means  of  their  Indulgences." 3 
"  I  greatly  fear,"  he  says  to  his  friends,  "  the  alliance  between 
the  Papists  and  the  Turks  by  which  they  intend  to  bring  us  to 
ruin.  God  grant  that  my  prophecy  may  prove  false.  ...  If 
this  enters  the  heads  of  the  Papists,  they  will  do  it,  for  the  malice 
of  the  devil  is  incredible  .  .  .  they  will  plot  and  scheme  how  to 
betray  us  and  deliver  us  over  into  the  hands  of  the  Turk."4 

Meanwhile  he  believes  that  God  is  fighting  for  his  cause  by 
rendering  the  Turks  victorious  :  "  See  how  often  the  Papists  with 
their  hatred  of  the  Evangel  and  their  trust  in  the  Emperor  have 
been  set  at  nought  "  ;  they  had  reckoned  on  the  destruction  of 
the  Lutherans  by  means  of  Charles  the  Fifth's  victory  over 
France,  but,  lo,  "a  great  French  army  marches  against  the 
Emperor,  Italy  falls  away  and  the  Turk  attacks  Germany  ;    this 

1  Cp.,  for  instance,  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  ed.  Kroker,  p.  257  : 
"  Pray  !  Quia  non  est  spes  amplius  in  armis,  sed  in  Deo.  If  anyone 
is  to  beat  the  Turk,  it  will  surely  be  the  little  children,  who  say  the 
Our  Father,"  etc.  (1542). 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  394. 

3  To  Amsdorf,  June  13,  1532,  "  Brief wechsel,"  9,  p.  196. 

4  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  396.     "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  406. 


92  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

means  that  God  has  dispersed  the  proud.  Ah,  my  good  God,  it  is 
Thou  Who  hast  done  this  thing  !  "x — On  one  occasion  he  declared  : 
"  In  order  that  it  might  be  discerned  and  felt  that  God  was  not 
with  us  in  the  war  against  the  Turks,  He  has  never  inspired  our 
Princes  with  sufficient  courage  and  spirit  earnestly  to  set  about 
the  Turkish  War.  .  .  .  Nowhere  is  anything  determined  upon 
or  carried  out.  .  .  .  Why  is  this  ?  In  order  that  my  Article, 
which  Pope  Leo  condemned,  may  remain  ever  true  and  uncon- 
demnned. "2 

When,  in  the  spring  of  1532,  Rome  itself  stood  in  fear  of  the 
Turk  and  many  even  took  to  flight,  a  letter  reached  Wittenberg 
announcing  the  consternation  which  prevailed  there  in  the 
Eternal  City.  Then  probably  it  was  that  Luther  spoke  the 
words  which  have  been  transmitted  in  both  the  Latin  and  German 
versions  of  the  "  Table-Talk  "  :  "  Should  the  Turk  advance  against 
Rome,  I  shall  not  regret  it.  For  we  read  in  the  Prophet  Daniel  : 
'  He  shall  fix  his  tabernacle  between  the  seas  upon  a  glorious  and 
holy  mountain.'  "  The  two  seas  he  imagined  to  be  the  Tyrrhenean 
and  the  Adriatic,  whilst  the  holy  mountain  meant  Rome,  "  for 
Rome  is  holy  on  account  of  the  many  Saints  who  are  buried 
there.  This  is  true,  for  the  abomination  which  is  the  Pope,  was 
[according  to  Daniel  ix.  27]  to  take  up  its  abode  in  the  holy  city. 
If  the  Turk  reaches  Rome,  then  the  Last  Day  is  certainly  not  far 
off."3 

It  would  even  seem  that  it  was  his  fervent  desire  to  see  Anti- 
christ ousted  by  the  Turk  which  allured  him  into  the  obscure 
region  of  biblical  prophecy. 

"  Accordingly  I  hope  for  the  end  of  the  world.  The  Emperor 
Charles  and  Solimannus  represent  the  last  dregs  of  worldly 
domination.  Christ  will  come,  for  Scripture  knows  nothing  of 
any  other  monarchy,  and  the  signs  of  the  end  of  the  world  are 
already  visible."4  "  The  rule  of  the  Turk  was  foretold  in  Daniel 
and  in  the  Apocalypse  that  the  pious  might  not  allow  themselves 
to  be  terrified  at  his  greatness.  The  prophecy  of  Daniel  gives  us 
a  splendid  account  of  what  is  to  happen  till  the  end  of  the  world, 
and  describes  clearly  the  reign  of  Antichrist  and  of  the  Turk."5 
Finally,  Luther  is  of  opinion  that  at  the  end  of  the  world  both 

1  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  399. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  2,  p.  113  ;  Erl.  ed.,  31,  p.  39.  "  On  the 
Turkish  War,"  1529.  "  The  angels  are  arming  themselves  for  the. 
fight  and  are  determined  to  overthrow  the  Turk,  together  with  the 
Pope,  and  to  cast  them  both  into  hell  "  (1540).  Mathesius,  "  Tischre- 
den,"  p.  244. 

3  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  p.  395  seq.  ;  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p. 
379.  Other  instances  of  the  hatred  which  caused  him  to  compare 
Pope  with  Turk  are  to  be  found  in  the  "Table-Talk"  ed.  by  Kroker, 
according  to  the  collection  of  Mathesius  :  "  Propter  crudelitatem,  Philippus 
[Melanchthon]  is  hostile  to  the  Turk  .  .  .  but  Philippus  is  not  yet 
sufficiently  angry  with  the  Pope,"  p.  307  (1542-1543).  "  Deus  hunc 
articulum  (incarnationis)  defendit  hodie  contra  Turcam  et  papam  semper  - 
que  miraculis  approbate  p.  94  (1540). 

*  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  401.  5  Ibid.,  403. 


DESCRIPTION   OF   THE   GERMANS     93 

must  be  united,  viz.  the  Papal  Antichrist  and  the  Turk,  because 
both  had  come  into  being  together.  About  the  time  of  the 
Emperor  Phocas  (t  610)  Mohammed  appeared  on  the  scene  of 
history,  and  at  that  very  time  too  the  Bishops  of  Rome  arro- 
gated to  themselves  the  primacy  over  the  whole  Church.1 

His  pseudo-mysticism  and  factious  temper  thus  continued  to 
play  an  unmistakable  part  in  his  ideas  concerning  the  Turk.2 

"  Against  such  might  and  power  [the  Turkish]  we  Germans 
behave  like  pot-bellied  pigs,  we  idle  about,  gorge,  tipple  and 
gamble,  and  commit  all  kinds  of  wantonness  and  roguery, 
heedless  of  all  the  great  and  pitiful  slaughters  and  defeats 
which  our  poor  German  soldiery  have  suffered."  3  "And, 
because  our  German  people  are  a  wild  and  unruly  race, 
half  diabolical  and  half  human,  some  even  desire  the  advent 
and  rule  of  the  Turk."4 

So  scathing  a  description  of  the  German  people  leads  us 
to  enquire  into  his  attitude  to  German  nationalism. 

5.   Luther's  Nationalism  and  Patriotism 

In  spite  of  his  outspoken  criticism  of  their  faults,  Luther 
recognised  and  honoured  the  good  qualities  of  the  Germans. 
His  denunciations  at  times  were  certainly  rather  severe  : 
"  We  Germans,"  he  says,  "  remain  Germans,  i.e.  pigs  and 
brutes  "  ;5  and  again,  "  We  vile  Germans  are  horrid  swine  "  ; 
"  for  the  most  part  such  shocking  pigs  are  we  hopeless 
Germans  that  neither  modesty,  discipline  nor  reason  is  to  be 
found  in  us";6  we  are  a  "nation  of  barbarians,"  etc. 
Germans,  according  to  him,  abuse  the  gifts  of  God  "  worse 
than  would  hogs."7  He  is  fond  of  using  such  language  when 
censuring  the  corruption  of  morals  which  had  arisen  owing 
to  abuse  and  disregard  of  the  Evangel  which  he  preached. 
Even  where  he  attempts  to  explain  his  manner  of  proceeding, 
where,  for  instance,  he  tries  to  justify  the  delay  in  forming 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  391. 

2  This  is  the  only  possible  explanation  of  the  following  prayer 
contained  in  the  solemn  service  for  the  Ordination  of  Ministers  which 
he  had  drafted  :  "  That  Thou  wouldst  at  length  restrain  and  put  an 
end  to  the  wicked  atrocities  of  the  Pope  and  Mahometh  and  other 
factious  spirits,  who  blaspheme  Thy  Name,  destroy  Thy  Kingdom  and 
resist  Thy  Will  "  {ibid.,  64,  p.  292).  3  Ibid.,  62,  p.  389. 

4  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  2,  p.  107  ;   Erl.  ed„  31,  p.  33. 

5  Ibid.,  19,  p.  631,  in  the  writing  "  Ob  Kriegsleutte  auch  ynn 
seligen  Stande  seyn  kiinden,"  1526. 

6  Ibid.,  23,  p.  149  ;    Erl.  ed.,  30,  p.  68. 

7  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  406  f.     "  Tischreden." 


94  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

the  "  Assembly  of  true  Christians,"  he  knows  how  to  display 
to  the  worst  advantage  the  unpleasing  side  of  the  German 
character.  "  We  Germans  are  a  wild,  savage,  blustering 
people  with  whom  it  is  not  easy  to  do  anything  except  in 
case  of  dire  necessity."1 

By  the  side  of  such  spiteful  explosions  must  be  set  the 
many  kindlier  and  not  unmerited  testimonies  Luther  gives 
to  the  good  qualities  peculiar  to  the  nation.2  In  various 
passages,  more  particularly  in  his  "Table-Talk,"  he  credits 
the  Germans  with  perseverance  and  steadfastness  in  their 
undertakings,  also  with  industry,  contentment  and  dis- 
interestedness ;  they  had  not  indeed  the  grace  of  the 
Italians,  nor  the  eloquence  of  the  French,  but  they  were 
more  honest  and  straightforward,  and  had  more  homely 
affection  for  their  good  old  customs.  He  also  believes  that 
they  had  formerly  been  distinguished  for  great  fidelity, 
"particularly  in  marriage,"  though  unfortunately  this  was 
no  longer  the  case.3 

Much  more  instructive  than  any  such  expressions  of 
opinion,  favourable  or  unfavourable,  is  the  attitude  Luther 
adopted  towards  the  political  questions  which  concerned 
the  existence,  the  unity  and  the  greatness  of  his  country. 

Here  his  religious  standpoint  induced  him  to  take  steps 
which  a  true  German  could  only  regret.  We  have  already 
shown  how  the  defence  against  the  Turks  was  hampered  by 
his  action.  He  also  appreciably  degraded  the  Empire  in 
the  eyes  of  the  Christian  nations.4    He  not  merely  attacked 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  19,  p.  75  ;  Erl.  ed.,  22,  p.  231.  "Deudsche 
Messe  und  Ordnung  Gottisdiensts,"  1526.  In  connection  with  Luther's 
favourite  expression  "  We  Germans,"  we  may  here  remark  that 
Luther's  opponents  at  Leipzig  spread  the  report  that  he  was  really  of 
Bohemian  origin.  This  they  did  when,  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Body  of 
Christ,  preached  in  1519,  he  had  demanded  the  general  use  of  the 
chalice  at  communion,  as  did  the  Utraquists  of  Bohemia.  As  to  this 
statement  that  "I  was  born  in  Bohemia,  educated  at  Prague  and 
instructed  in  Wiclif's  writings,"  Luther  replied  in  his  writing  :  "Erk- 
lerung  etlicher  Artickel  yn  seynem  Sermon  von  dem  heyligen  Sacra- 
ment," 1520,  that  this  was  a  "  piece  of  folly."  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.. 
6,  p.  81  f. 

2  Cp.  "  Tischreden."  c.  76  :  "  Von  Landen  und  Stadten,"  "  Werke," 
Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  405  ff.  Before  this  we  read,  ibid.,  p.  390  :  "  Germany 
has  always  been  the  best  land  and  nation  ;  but  what  befell  Troy  will 
also  befall  her,"  etc. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  406. 

4  Cp.  above  p.  55,  p.  71  f.  and  p.  77,  the  passages  against  the  Emperor, 
who  "  boasts  so  shamelessly  of  being  the  true,  chief  protector  of  the 


ON  THE   EMPEROR  95 

the  authority  of  the  Emperor  and  thereby  the  power  whieh 
held  together  the  Empire,  by  his  criticism  of  the  edicts  of  the 
Diets,  by  the  spirit  of  discord  and  party  feeling  he  aroused 
amongst  those  who  shared  his  opinions,  and  by  his  un- 
measured and  incessant  abuse  of  the  authorities,  but,  as 
years  went  by,  he  also  came  even  to  approve,  as  we  have 
seen  above  (p.  53  ff.),  of  armed  resistance  to  the  Emperor 
and  the  Empire  as  something  lawful,  nay,  praiseworthy, 
if  undertaken  on  behalf  of  the  new  Evangel. 

"  If  it  is  lawful  to  defend  ourselves  against  the  Turk,"  he 
writes,  "  then  it  is  still  more  lawful  to  do  so  against  the  Pope, 
who  is  even  worse.  Since  the  Emperor  has  associated  him- 
self with  the  defenders  of  the  Pope,  he  must  expect  to  be 
treated  as  his  wickedness  deserves."  "  Formerly  I  advised 
that  we  should  yield  to  the  Emperor  [i.e.  not  undertake 
anything  against  him]  ;  even  now  I  still  say  that  we  should 
yield  to  these  heathen  tyrants  when  they — Pope,  Cardinals, 
Bishops,  Emperor,  etc. — cease  to  appeal  to  the  name  of 
Christ,  but  acknowledge  themselves  to  be  what  they  really 
are,  viz.  slaves  of  Satan  ;  but  if,  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
they  wish  to  stone  Christians,  then  their  stones  will  recoil 
on  their  own  heads  and  they  will  incur  the  penalty  attached 
to  the  Second  Commandment."1 

He  saw  "  no  difference  between  an  assassin  and  the 
Emperor,"  should  the  latter  proceed  against  his  party — a 
course  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  was  imposed  on  the 
Emperor  by  the  very  laws  of  the  Empire.  How,  he  asks, 
"  can  a  man  sacrifice  his  body  and  this  poor  life  in  a  higher 
and  more  praiseworthy  cause "  "  than  in  such  worship 
[resistance  by  violence]  for  the  saving  of  God's  honour  and 
the  protection  of  poor  Christendom,  as  David,  Ezechias  and 
other  holy  kings  and  princes  did  ?  "2 

Countless  examples  from  the  Old  Testament  such  as  the 
above  were  always  at  his  command  for  the  purpose  of 
illustrating  his  arguments. 

In  the  "  Warnunge  an  seine  lieben  Deudschen,"  in  1531, 

Christian  faith,"  though  he  is  but  "  a  poor  bag  of  worms,"  and  against 
his  blind  and  hidden  falsehoods.  Other  abuse  of  the  Emperor,  inter- 
spersed with  praise,  will  be  quoted  below    (p.  104  f.). 

1  To  Johann  Ludicke,  Pastor  at  Cottbus,  on  February  8,  1539, 
"  Brief wechsel,"  12,  p.  87.     Cp.  above,  p.  72  f. 

2  To  the  Elector  Johann  Frederick  in  January,  1539,  "  Brief  - 
wechsel,"  12,  p.  78.    Cp.  above,  p.  70  f. 


96  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

he  warns  the  Imperial  power  that  God,  "  even  though  He 
Himself  sit  still,  may  well  raise  up  a  Judas  Machabeus  M 
should  the  Imperial  forces  have  recourse  to  arms  against 
the  "  Evangelicals  "  ;  their  enemies  would  learn  what  their 
ancestors  had  learned  in  the  war  with  Ziska  and  the  Husites. 
Resistance  to  "  blood-hounds  "  is,  after  all,  mere  self-defence. 
Whoever  followed  the  Emperor  against  him  and  his  party 
became  guilty  of  all  the  Emperor's  own  "  godless  abomina- 
tions." To  instruct  "  his  German  people  "  on  this  matter 
was  the  object  of  the  writing  above  referred  to.1 

"  As  I  am  the  Prophet  of  the  Germans — this  high-sounding 
title  I  am  obliged  to  assume  to  please  my  asinine  Papists — 
I  will  act  as  a  faithful  teacher  and  warn  my  staunch  Germans 
of  the  danger  in  which  they  stand."2 

By  thus  coming  forward  as  the  divinely  commissioned 
spokesman  of  the  Germans,  as  the  representative  and 
prophet  of  the  nation,  he  implicitly  denied  to  those  who  did 
not  follow  his  banner  the  right  of  being  styled  Germans.  He 
was  fond  of  professing,  in  his  war  on  Pope  and  Church,  to 
be  the  champion  of  the  Germans  against  Rome's  oppression. 
This  enabled  him  to  stir  up  the  national  feeling  amongst 
those  who  followed  him  as  his  allies,  and  to  win  over  the 
vacillating  by  means  of  the  delusive  watchword  :  "  Germany 
against  Italian  tyranny."  But,  apart  from  the  absolute 
want  of  justification  for  any  such  appeal  to  national  pre- 
judices, the  assumption  that  Germany  was  wholly  on  his 
side  was  entirely  wrong.  He  spoke  merely  in  the  name  of  a 
fraction  of  the  German  nation.  To  those  who  remained 
faithful  to  the  Church  and  who,  often  at  great  costs  to 
themselves,  defended  the  heritage  of  their  pious  German 
forefathers,  it  was  a  grievous  insult  that  German  nationalism 
should  thus  be  identified  with  the  new  faith  and  Church. 

Even  at  the  present  time  in  the  German-speaking  world 
Catholics  stand  to  Protestants  in  the  relation  of  two-fifths 
to  three-fifths,  and,  if  it  would  be  a  mistake  to-day  to  regard 
Teutonism  and  Protestantism  as  synonymous — a  mistake 
only  to  be  met  with  where  deepest  prejudice  prevails — still 
better  founded  were  the  complaints  of  Catholics  in  Luther's 
own  time,  that  he  should  identify  the  new  Saxon  doctrines 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  3,  p.  281  f.,  300  f.  ;  Erl.  ed.,  252,  p.  10  f., 
30. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  290  =  22. 


GERMAN  VERSUS  ROMAN     97 

with  the  German  name  and  the  interests  of  Germany  as  a 
whole.1 

Even  in  the  first  years  of  his  public  career  he  appealed  to 
his  readers'  patriotism  as  against  Rome.  In  1518,  before 
he  had  even  thought  of  his  aggressive  pamphlet  "  To  the 
German  Nobility,"  he  commended  the  German  Princes  for 
coming  forward  to  protect  the  German  people  against  the 
extortions  of  the  Roman  Curia  ;  "  Prierias,  Cajetan  and  Co. 
call  us  blockheads,  simpletons,  beasts  and  barbarians,  and 
scoff  at  the  patience  with  which  we  allow  ourselves  to  be 
deceived."2  In  the  following  year,  when  this  charge  had 
already  become  one  of  his  stock  complaints,  he  summed  it 
up  thus  :  "  We  Germans,  through  our  emperors,  bestowed 
power  and  prestige  on  the  Popes  in  olden  days  and,  now,  in 
return,  we  are  forced  to  submit  to  being  fleeced  and 
plundered.3  In  the  writing  against  Alveld,  "  Von  dem 
Rapstum  tzu  Rome,"  a  year  later,  he  declared  in  words 
calculated  to  excite  the  ire  of  every  Teuton,  that  in  Rome 
they  were  determined  to  suck  the  last  farthing  out  of  the 
"  tipsy  Germans,"  as  they  termed  them  ;  unless  Princes 
and  nobles  defended  themselves  to  the  utmost  the  Italians 
would  make  of  Germany  a  wilderness.  "  At  Rome  they 
even  have  a  saying  about  us,  viz.  '  We  must  milk  the 
German  fools  of  their  cash  the  best  way  we  can.'  "4 

That  Luther  should  have  conducted  his  attacks  on  the 
Papacy  on  these  lines  was  due  in  part  to  Ulrich  von  Hutten's 
influence.  Theodore  Kolde  has  rightly  pointed  out,  that 
his  acquaintance  with  Hutten's  writings  largely  accounts 
for  the  utter  virulence  of  Luther's  assault  on  "  Romanism."5 
There  is  no  doubt  that  the  sparks  of  hate  which  emanated 
from  this  frivolous  and  revolutionary  humanist  contributed 
to  kindle  the  somewhat  peculiar  patriotism  of  the  Witten- 

1  Doctor  Johann  Mensing,  O.P.,  a  literary  opponent  of  Luther's,  in 
dedicating  a  polemical  tract  of  1526,  defends  the  Catholics'  sense  of 
patriotism,  speaking  of  Luther  as  the  "  destroyer  of  our  fair  German 
land  "  (see  "  Luthers  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  8,  p.  478).  Another  Domini- 
can, Thomas  Rhadinus  Todischus,  in  1520,  in  the  title  of  a  work  published 
at  Rome,  describes  him  as  "  violating  the  glory  of  the  nation  "  ("  nationis 
gloriam  vidians  ").  The  latter  work  was  attributed  by  Luther  ard 
Melanchthon  to  Emser,  who,  however,  repudiated  the  authorship. 
Cp.  ibid.,  7,  p.  259. 

2  See  vol.  i.,  p.  403.  3  Ibid. 

4  «  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  289  ;  Erl.  ed.,  27,  p.  91.  Cp.  our  vol. 
ii.,  p.  9  f. 

5  "  Luthers  Stellung  zu  Concil  und  Kirche,"  1876,  p.  69. 

III.— H 


98  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

berg  professor.  All  the  good  that  Rome  had  brought  to 
Germany  in  the  shape  of  Christian  culture  was  lost  to  sight 
in  the  whirlwind  of  revolt  heralded  by  Hutten  ;  the  financial 
oppression  exercised  by  the  Curia,  and  the  opposition  between 
German  and  Italian,  were  grossly  exaggerated  by  the 
knights. 

Specifically  German  elements  played,  however,  their  part 
in  Luther's  movement.  The  famous  Gravamina  Nationis 
Germanicce  had  been  formulated  before  Luther  began  to 
exploit  them.  Another  German  element  was  the  peculiar 
mysticism,  viz.  that  of  Tauler  and  the  "  Theologia  Deutsch," 
on  which,  though  he  misapprehended  much  of  it,  Luther 
at  the  outset  based  his  theories.  German  frankness  and 
love  of  freedom  also  appeared  to  find  their  utterance  in  the 
plain  and  vigorous  denunciations  which  the  Monk  of  Witten- 
berg addressed  to  high  and  low  alike  ;  even  his  uncouth 
boldness  found  a  strong  echo  in  the  national  character.  And 
yet  it  was  not  so  much  "  national  fellow-feeling,"1  to  quote 
the  expression  of  a  Protestant  author,  which  insured  him 
such  success,  but  other  far  more  deeply  seated  causes,  some 
of  which  will  be  touched  upon  later,  while  others  have 
already  been  discussed. 

It  is,  however,  noteworthy  that  this  "  Prophet  of  the 
Germans,"  when  speaking  to  the  nation  he  was  so  fond  of 
calling  his  own,  did  not  scruple  to  predict  for  it  the  gloomiest 
future. 

A  dark  pessimism  broods  over  Luther's  spirit  almost 
constantly  whenever  he  speaks  of  the  years  awaiting 
Germany  ;  he  sees  the  people,  owing  to  his  innovations, 
confronted  with  disastrous  civil  wars,  split  up  into  endless 
and  perpetually  increasing  sects  and  thus  brought  face  to 
face  with  hopeless  moral  degradation.  His  cry  is.  Let  the 
Empire  dissolve,  "Let  Germany  perish."  "Let  the  world 
fall  into  ruins."2  He  consoles  himself  with  the  reflection 
that  Christ,  when  founding  His  Church,  had  foreseen  and 
sanctioned  the  inevitable  destruction  of  all  hostile  powers, 
of  Judaism  and  even  of  the  Roman  Empire.    It  was  in  the 

1  H.  Meltzer,  "  Luther  als  deutscher  Mann,"  Tubingen,  1905, 
p.  56. 

2  Cp.  above,  p.  45  f.  "  Let  things  take  their  course  and  do  their 
worst,  whether  it  be  war  or  rebellion,  as  God's  anger  may  decree." 
"Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  3,  p.  279;  Erl.  ed.,  252,  p.  8,  "Warnunge 
an  seine  lieben  Deudschen,"  1531. 


LUTHER'S   PESSIMISM  99 

nature  of  the  Gospel  to  triumph  by  the  destruction  of  all 
that  withstood  it.  It  was  certainly  a  misfortune,  Luther 
admits,  that  the  wickedness  of  the  Germans,  every  day 
growing  worse,  should  be  the  cause  of  this  ruin.  "  I  am 
very  hopeless  about  Germany  now  that  she  has  harboured 
within  her  walls  those  real  Turks  and  devils,  viz.  avarice, 
usury,  tyranny,  dissensions  and  this  Lernean  serpent  of  envy 
and  malice  which  has  entangled  the  nobles,  the  Court,  every 
Rathaus,  town  and  village,  to  say  nothing  of  the  contempt 
for  the  Divine  Word  and  unprecedented  ingratitude 
[towards  the  new  Evangel]."  This  is  how  he  wrote  to 
Lauterbach.1  Writing  to  Jonas,  he  declared  :  "  No  im- 
provement need  be  looked  for  in  Germany  whether  the 
realm  be  in  the  hands  of  the  Turk  or  in  our  own,  for  the 
only  aim  of  tW  nobility  and  Princes  is  how  they  can  enslave 
Germany  and  suck  the  people  dry  and  make  everything 
their  very  own."2 

The  lack  of  any  real  national  feeling  among  the  Princes 
was  another  element  which  caused  him  anxiety.  Yet  he 
himself  had  done  as  much  as  any  to  further  the  spread  of 
that  "  particularism  "  which  to  a  great  extent  had  replaced 
the  national  German  ideal ;  he  had  unduly  exalted  the 
rights  of  the  petty  sovereigns  by  giving  them  the  spiritual 
privileges  and  property  of  the  Church,  and  he  had  confirmed 
them  in  their  efforts  to  render  themselves  entirely  inde- 
pendent of  the  Emperor  and  to  establish  themselves  as 
despots  within  their  own  territories.  Since  the  unhappy 
war  of  1525  the  peasantry  and  lower  classes  were  convinced 
that  no  remedy  was  to  be  found  in  religion  for  the 
amelioration  of  their  social  condition,  and  had  come  to  hate 
both  Luther  and  the  lords,  because  they  believed  both  to 
have  been  instrumental  in  increasing  their  burdens.  The 
other  classes,  instead  of  thanking  him  for  furthering  the 
German  cause,  also  complained  of  having  had  to  suffer  on 
his   account.      In   this    connection    we   may   mention   the 

1  On  November  10,  1541,  "  Brief e,"  ed.  De  Wette,  5,  p.  407  : 
"  Ego  pcene  de  Germania  desperavi"  etc.  Of  this  passage  we  read 
in  Kostlin-Kawerau  (2,  p.  572)  :  "  The  exaltation  which  had  been 
experienced  by  every  grade  of  the  nation  during  the  first  period  of  the 
Reformation  had,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  largely  died  out,  and  now  the 
lowest  motives  held  sway." 

2  On  March  7,  1543,  ibid.,  p.  548  :  "  Neque  bene  habebit  Germania, 
8ive  regnet  Turca  sive  nostrates"  etc. 


100         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

grievance  of  the  mercantile  community,  Luther  having 
deemed  it  necessary  to  denounce  as  morally  dangerous  any 
oversea  trade.1  It  was  also  a  grievous  blow  to  education 
and  learning  in  Germany,  when,  owing  to  the  storm  which 
Luther  let  loose,  the  Universities  were  condemned  to  a  long 
period  of  enforced  inactivity.2  He  himself  professed  that 
his  particular  mission  was  to  awaken  interest  in  the  Bible, 
not  to  promote  learning  ;  yet  Germans  owe  him  small  thanks 
for  opposing  as  he  did  the  discoveries  of  the  famous  German 
Canon  of  Frauenburg,  Niklas  Koppernigk  (Copernicus),  and 
for  describing  the  founder  of  modern  astronomy  as  a  fool 
who  wished  to  upset  all  the  previous  science  of  the  heavens.3 

Whilst  showing  himself  ultra-conservative  where  good 
and  useful  progress  in  secular  matters  was  concerned,  he, 
on  the  other  hand,  scrupled  not  to  sacrifice  the  real  and 
vital  interests  of  his  nation  in  the  question  of  public  ecclesi- 
astical conditions  by  his  want  of  conservatism  and  his 
revolutionary  innovations.  True  conservatism  would  have 
endeavoured  to  protect  the  German  commonwealth  and  to 
preserve  it  from  disaster  by  a  strict  guard  over  the  good  and 
tried  elements  on  which  it  rested,  more  particularly  over 
unchangeable  dogma.  The  wilful  destruction  of  the  heritage, 
social,  religious  and  learned,  contributed  to  by  countless 
generations  of  devout  forebears  ever  since  the  time  of 
St.  Boniface,  at  the  expense  of  untold  toil  and  self-sacrifice, 
can  certainly  not  be  described  as  patriotic  on  the  part  of 
a  German.  At  any  rate,  it  can  never  have  occurred  to  any- 
one seriously  to  expect  that  those  Germans  whose  views  on 
religion  were  not  those  of  Luther  should  have  taken  his 
view  of  the  duty  of  a  patriot. 

The  main  fact  remains  that  Luther's  action  drove  a 
wedge  into  the  unity  of  the  German  nation.  Wherever  his 
spirit  prevailed — which  was  by  no  means  the  case  in  every 
place  which  to  some  extent  came  under  his  influence — 
there  also  prevailed  prejudice,  suspicion  and  mistrust  against 
all  non-Lutherans,  rendering  difficult  any  co-operation  for 
the  welfare  of  the  fatherland. 

In  discussing  a  recent  work  which  extols  Luther  as  a 
"  true  German  "  a  learned  Protestant  gives  it  as  his  opinion, 
that,  however  much  one  may  be  inclined  to  exalt  his  patriot  - 

1  See  vol.  v.,  xxxv.,  6. 

2  Ibid.,  xxxv.,  3.  3  Ibid. 


THE   TYPICAL   GERMAN  101 

ism,  it  must,  nevertheless,  be  allowed  that  Luther  cherished 
a  sort  of  indifference  to  the  vital  interests  of  his  nation  ;  his 
"  religious  concentration  "  made  him  less  mindful  of  true 
patriotism ;  this  our  author  excuses  by  the  remark : 
"  Justice  and  truth  were  more  to  him  than  home  and 
people."  Luther,  it  is  also  said,  "  did  not  clearly  point  out 
the  independent,  ethical  value  of  a  national  feeling,  just  as 
he  omitted  to  insist  at  all  clearly  on  the  reaction  of  the 
ethical  upon  the  religious."1 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  his  ways  and  feelings  are 
often  represented  as  the  "  very  type  and  model  of  the  true 
German."2  Nor  is  this  view  to  be  found  among  Protestants 
only,  for  Ignatius  von  Dollinger  adopted  it  in  later  life, 
when  he  saw  fit  to  abandon  his  previous  position. 

Before  this,  in  1851,  in  his  Sketch  of  Luther,  he  had  indeed 
said,  concerning  his  patriotism,  that,  in  his  handling  of  the 
language  and  the  use  he  made  of  the  peculiarities  of  his  country- 
men, "  he  possessed  a  wonderful  gift  of  charming  his  hearers, 
and  that  his  power  as  a  popular  orator  was  based  on  an  accurate 
knowledge  and  appreciation  of  the  foibles  of  the  German  national 
character."3  In  1861,  he  wrote  in  another  work:  "Luther  is 
the  most  powerful  demagogue  and  the  most  popular  character 
that  Germany  has  ever  possessed."  "  From  the  mind  of  this 
man,  the  greatest  German  of  his  day,  sprang  the  Protestant 
faith.  Before  the  ascendency  and  creative  energy  of  this  mind, 
the  more  aspiring  and  vigorous  portion  of  the  nation  humbly 
and  trustfully  bent  the  knee.  In  him,  who  so  well  united  in 
himself  intellect  and  force,  they  recognised  their  master  ;  in  his 
ideas  they  lived  ;  to  them  he  seemed  the  hero  in  whom  the  nation 
with  all  its  peculiarities  was  embodied.  They  admired  him,  they 
surrendered  themselves  to  him  because  they  believed  they  had 
found  in  him  their  ideal,  and  because  they  found  in  his  writings 
their  own  most  intimate  feelings,  only  expressed  more  clearly, 
more  eloquently  and  more  powerfully  than  they  themselves 
were  capable  of  doing.  Thus  Luther's  name  is  to  Germany  not 
merely  that  of  a  distinguished  man,  but  the  very  embodiment 
of  a  pregnant  period  in  national  life,  the  centre  of  a  new  circle  of 
ideas  and  the  most  concise  expression  of  those  religious  and 
ethical  views  amidst  which  the  German  spirit  moved,  and  the 
powerful  influence  of  which  not  even  those  who  were  averse  to 
them  could  altogether  escape."4 

Here  special  stress  is  laid  on  Luther's  power  over  "  the  more 

1  "  Deutsche  Literaturztg.,"  1905,  No.  10,  Scheel's  Review  of  H. 
Meltzer's  "  Luther  als  deutscher  Mann  "  (see  above,  p.  98,  n.  1). 

2  Meltzer,  ibid.,  56. 

3  "  Luther,  eine  Skizze,"  p.  57. 

4  "  Kirche  und  Kirchen,  Papsttum  und  Kirchenstaat,"  p.  10,  386  f. 


102         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

aspiring  Germans  "  who  followed  him,  i.e.  over  the  Protestant 
portion  of  the  nation.  Elsewhere,  however,  in  1872,  Dollinger 
brings  under  Luther's  irresistible  spell  "  his  time  and  his  people," 
i.e.  the  whole  of  Germany,  quite  regardless  of  the  fact  that  the 
larger  portion  still  remained  Catholic.  "  Luther's  overpowering 
mind  and  extraordinary  versatility  made  him  the  man  of  his 
time  and  of  his  people  ;  there  never  was  a  German  who  under- 
stood his  people  so  well,  or  who  in  turn  was  so  thoroughly  under- 
stood, yea,  drunk  in,  by  the  people,  as  this  Monk  of  Wittenberg. 
The  mind  and  spirit  of  the  German  people  were  in  his  hands  like 
a  harp  in  the  hands  of  the  musician.  For  had  he  not  bestowed 
upon  them  more  than  ever  one  man  had  given  to  his  people  since 
the  dawn  of  Christianity  ?  A  new  language,  popular  handbooks, 
a  German  Bible,  and  his  hymns.  He  alone  impressed  upon  the 
German  language  and  the  German  spirit  alike  his  own  imperish- 
able seal,  so  that  even  those  amongst  us  who  abhor  him  from  the 
bottom  of  our  hearts  as  the  mighty  heresiarch  who  seduced  the 
German  nation  cannot  help  speaking  with  his  words  and  thinking 
with  his  thoughts.  Yet,  even  more  powerful  than  this  Titan  of 
the  intellectual  sphere,  was  the  longing  of  the  German  nation 
for  freedom  from  the  bonds  of  a  corrupt  ecclesiasticism."1 

The  change  in  Dollinger's  conception  of  Luther  which  is  here 
apparent  was  not  simply  due  to  his  personal  antagonism  to  the 
Vatican  Council  ;  it  is  closely  connected  with  his  then  efforts, 
proclaimed  even  in  the  very  title  of  the  Lectures  in  question  : 
"  Reunion  of  the  Christian  Churches  "  ;  for  this  reunion  Dollinger 
hoped  to  be  able  to  pave  the  way  without  the  assistance  of,  and 
even  in  opposition  to,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  The  fact  is, 
however,  that  in  the  above  passages  the  domination  which  Luther 
exercised  over  those  who  had  fallen  away  with  him  has  been 
made  far  too  much  of,  otherwise  how  can  we  explain  Luther's  own 
incessant  complaints  regarding  the  small  response  to  the  preaching 
of  his  new  Evangel  ?  The  production  of  a  schism  by  his  vehement 
and  forceful  oratory  was  one  thing  ;  vigorous  direction  and 
leadership  in  the  task  of  religious  reconstruction  was  quite  a' 
different  matter. 

It  is  not  our  intention  here  to  embark  upon  a  controversy 

1  "  Vortrage  iiber  die  Wiedervereinigung  der  chr.  Kirchen," 
authentic  edition,  1888,  p.  53  f.  Cp.  E.  Michael,  "  Dollinger,3  "  p. 
230  ft  Michael  rightly  quotes  the  following  striking  passage  of  the 
earlier  Dollinger  as  descriptive  of  the  attitude  of  the  Church  towards 
Luther  :  "  May  not  the  time  come,  nay,  be  already  at  hand,  when 
[Protestant]  preachers  and  theologians  will  take  a  calmer  view  of 
things  and  realise  that  the  Catholic  Church  in  Germany  only  did  what 
she  could  not  avoid  doing  ?  All  the  reproaches  and  charges  made 
against  this  Church  amount  in  fine  to  this,  that  she  rejected  the 
demand  ma&e  of  her  in  the  name  of  the  Reformation  to  break  with 
her  past,  that  she  remained  faithful  to  her  traditions,  that  she  persisted 
in  developing  along  the  lines  originally  laid  down,  and  resolved  to 
fulfil  her  task  while  holding  fast  to  the  uninterrupted  continuity  of  her 
ecclesiastical  life  and  her  connection  with  the  other  portions  of  the 
Church  "  ("  Kirche  und  Kirchen,"  p.  490). 


THE   TYPICAL   GERMAN  103 

on  such  an  opinion  concerning  Luther's  German  influence 
as  that  here  advanced  by  Dollinger.  The  present  work 
will,  in  due  course,  treat  of  Luther's  posthumous  influence 
on  German  culture  and  the  German  language,  of  his  famous 
German  Bible,  and  of  his  hymnological  work  (see  vol.  v., 
xxxiv.,  xxxv.),  when  we  shall  have  occasion  to  show  the  true 
value  to  be  accorded  to  such  statements.  As  they  stand, 
our  last  quotations  from  Dollinger  merely  constitute  a  part 
of  the  legend  which  grew  up  long  since  around  the  memory 
of  the  Wittenberg  professor. 

It  must  certainly  be  admitted,  that  Luther's  powerful 
language  is  grounded  on  a  lively  and  clear  comprehension 
of  German  ways  of  thought  and  German  modes  of  ex- 
pression ;  his  command  of  language  and  his  power  for 
trenchant  description,  which  were  the  result  of  his  character, 
of  his  intercourse  with  the  common  people  and  his  talent 
for  noting  their  familiar  ways  of  speech,  were  rare  qualities. 
He  left  in  his  writings  much  that  served  as  a  model  to  later 
Germans.  Of  his  translation  of  the  Bible  in  particular  we 
may  say,  with  Janssen,  that,  although  Luther  cannot  be 
termed  the  actual  founder  of  the  new  High-German,  yet 
"  his  deserts  as  regards  the  development  of  the  German 
language  are  great,"  especially  in  the  matter  of  "  syntax  and 
style.  In  the  last  respect  no  one  of  any  insight  will  wish  to 
dispute  the  service  which  Luther  rendered."  "  The  force 
and  expression  of  the  popular  speech  was  hit  off  by  Luther 
in  a  masterly  manner  in  his  Bible  translations."1 

Those  Germans,  who  had  been  won  over  to  the  new  faith 
and  had  become  Luther's  faithful  followers,  found  in  the 
instructions  written  in  his  own  popular  vein,  particularly  in 
those  on  the  Bible,  enlightenment  and  edification,  in  many 
cases,  no  doubt,  much  to  their  advantage.  Writing  for  the 
benefit  of  this  circle,  the  versatile  author,  in  his  ethical 
works — his  controversial  ones  are  not  here  under  considera- 
tion— deals  with  countless  other  subjects  outside  the  range 
of  biblical  teaching  ;  here  his  manner  owes  its  power  to  the 
fact  that  he  speaks  in  tones  caught  from  the  lips  of  the 
people  themselves.  Thus,  for  instance,  when  he  discovers 
the  blots  which  sully  the  nation  :  luxury  in  dress,  the 
avarice  of  the  rich,  the  "  miserliness  and  hoarding  "  of  the 
peasants.    Or  when  he  tells  unpleasant  truths  to  the  "  great 

1  Janssen,  "  Hist,  of  the  German  People  "  (Eng.  Trans.),  14,  p.  408  f. 


104         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

fops,"  the  nobles,  concerning  their  despotic  and  arrogant 
behaviour.  Or,  again,  when  he  raises  his  voice  in  condemna- 
tion of  the  neglect  of  education,  or  to  reprove  excessive 
drinking,  or  when,  to  mention  a  special  case,  he  paints  in  lurid 
and  amusing  colours  the  slothfulness  and  utter  carelessness 
of  the  Germans  after  having  achieved  any  success  in  war 
against  the  Turks.  His  gift  of  humour  always  stood  him  in 
good  stead,  and  his  love  of  extravagant  phraseology  and 
imagery  and  of  incisive  rhetoric  was  of  the  greatest  service 
to  him  in  his  dealings  with  the  people,  for  both  appealed 
strongly  to  German  taste.  Nor  must  we  forget  his  pro- 
ficiency in  the  effective  application  of  German  proverbs — 
a  collection  of  proverbs  in  his  own  handwriting  is  still  extant 
and  has  recently  been  published — nor  his  familiarity  with 
German  folk-lore  and  ballads,  nor  finally  the  wonderful  gift 
which  served  to  tranquillise  many  who  were  still  undecided 
and  wavering,  viz.  the  boundless  assurance  and  unshakable 
confidence  with  which  he  could  advance  even  the  most 
novel  and  startling  opinions.  The  Germans  of  that  day 
loved  weight  and  power,  and  a  strong  man  could  not  fail  to 
impress  them,  hence,  for  those  who  were  not  restrained  by 
obedience  to  the  Church,  Luther  undoubtedly  seemed  a 
real  chip  of  the  old  German  block. 

A  single  passage,  one  against  usurers,  will  serve  to  show  with 
what  energy  this  man  of  the  people  could  raise  his  voice,  to  the 
joy  of  the  many  who  groaned  under  the  burden.  "  Ah,  how 
securely  the  usurer  lives  and  rages  as  though  he  himself  were 
God  and  Lord  of  the  whole  land  ;  no  one  dares  to  resist  him. 
And  now  that  I  write  against  them  these  saintly  usurers  scoff  at 
me  and  say  :  '  Luther  doesn't  know  what  usury  is  ;  let  him  read 
his  Matthew  and  his  Psalter.'  But  I  preach  Christ  and  my  word 
is  the  Word  of  God,  and  of  this  I  am  well  assured,  that  you 
accursed  usurers  shall  be  taught  either  by  the  Turk  or  by  some 
other  tool  of  God's  wrath,  that  Luther  really  knew  and  under- 
stood what  usury  was.  At  any  rate,  my  warning  is  worth  a 
sterling  gulden."1 

On  the  very  same  page  he  vents  his  anger  against  the  supreme 
Imperial  Court  of  Justice,  because,  "  in  matters  pertaining  to 
the  Gospel  and  the  Church,"  its  sentences  did  not  accord  with 
his.  "  I  shan't  be  a  hypocrite,  but  shall  speak  the  truth  and  say  : 
See  what  a  devil's  strumpet  reigns  in  the  Imperial  Kammer- 
gericht,  which  ought  to  be  a  heavenly  jewel  in  the  German  land, 
the  one  consolation  of  all  who  suffer  injustice." 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  32,  p.  77,  in  "  Vermanunge  zum  Gebet  wider 
den  Turcken." 


THE   TYPICAL   GERMAN  105 

Particularly  effective  was  his  incitement  of  the  people  to  hate 
Popery.  "  We  Germans  must  remain  Germans  and  the  Pope's 
own  donkeys  and  victims,  even  though  we  are  brayed  in  the 
mortar  like  sodden  barley,  as  Solomon  says  (Prov.  xxvii.  22)  ; 
we  stick  fast  in  our  folly.  No  complaints,  no  instruction,  no 
beseeching,  no  imploring,  not  even  our  own  daily  experience  of 
how  we  have  been  fleeced  and  devoured  opens  our  eyes."1 — 
"  The  Emperor  and  the  Princes,"  he  had  already  said,  "  openly 
go  about  telling  lies  of  us  "  ;2  "  pigs  and  donkeys,"  "  mad  and 
tipsy  Princes,"  such  are  the  usual  epithets  with  which  he  spices 
his  language  here  and  later. 

"  Out  of  deep  sympathy  for  us  poor  Germans  "3  it  is  that  he 
ventures  to  speak  thus  in  the  name  of  all. 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  254  ;  Erl.  ed.,  242,  p.  222.  "  Zwey 
keyserliche  .   .   .  Gepott,"  1524. 

2  In  the  same  way  that  he  here  abuses  the  Emperor,  so  he  also 
knows  how  to  bestow  praise  upon  him ;  for  instance,  in  the  official 
writing  referred  to  above  (p.  89)  to  the  Electoral  Prince  Joachim  of 
Brandenburg  and  in  his  Warnunge  an  seine  lieben  Deudschen," 
where  he  declares,  strangely  enough,  that  "  our  beloved  Emperor 
Carol  "  has  shown  himself  hitherto,  and  last  of  all  at  the  Diet  of 
Augsburg  in  1530,  such,  that  he  has  won  the  respect  and  love  of  the 
whole  world  and  deserves  that  no  trouble  should  befall  him,  and  that 
our  people  should  only  speak  in  praise  of  his  Imperial  virtue  "  ("Werke,  " 
Weim.  ed.,  30,  3,  p.  291 ;  Erl.  ed.,  252,  p.  23),  and  yet,  even  there,  in 
consequence  of  his  edict  against  the  new  faith  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg, 
he  puts  the  Emperor  with  the  Pope,  as  the  originators  of  a  resolution 
which  "  must  prove  an  eternal  blot  upon  all  the  Princes  and  the  whole 
Empire,  and  make  us  Germans  blush  for  shame  before  God  and  the 
whole  world,"  so  that  "  even  the  Turk,  the  '  Tattars  '  and  'Moscobites  ' 
despise  us."  "  Who  under  the  whole  expanse  of  heaven  will  for  the 
future  fear  us  or  think  well  of  us  when  they  hear  that  we  allow  our- 
selves to  be  hoaxed,  mocked,  treated  as  children,  as  fools,  nay,  even 
as  clods  and  blocks  by  the  cursed  Pope  and  his  tools  [who  hold  the 
Emperor  in  leading  strings]  ?  .  .  .  Every  German  may  well  regret 
that  he  was  born  a  German  and  is  called  a  German  "  (ibid.,  p.  285=  15). 
On  the  strength  of  the  words  quoted  above  in  praise  of  the  Emperor 
we  find  Luther  credited  in  Protestant  works  of  history  with  "  the  old, 
loyal  sentiments  of  a  good,  simple  German  for  his  Emperor,"  nay, 
even  with  "  the  language  of  charity  which  according  to  Holy  Scripture 
believes  all  things,  hopes  all  things."  And  yet  Luther  in  his  letters  to 
his  confidential  friends  spoke  after  this  of  Charles  V.  in  the  following 
terms  :  "  The  Emperor  was,  is,  and  shall  ever  remain  a  servant  of  the 
servants  of  the  devil,"  and  the  worst  of  it  is,  that  he  "  lends  the  devil 
his  services  knowingly  "  (to  Jonas,  etc.,  March  or  April,  1540,  "  Briefe.," 
ed.  De  Wette,  5,  p.  275).  "  God's  wrath  has  come  upon  him  and  his 
friends.  .  .  .  We  have  prayed  enough  for  him,  if  he  does  not  want  a 
blessing,  then  let  him  take  our  curse."  He  accuses  him  of  hypocrisy 
("  purus  hypocrita  ")  and  of  breach  of  faith  with  the  Turks  after  his  stay 
at  Vienna  ;  he  had  swallowed  up  the  Bishopric  of  Liege  and  intended  ■ 
to  do  the  same  with  all  the  bishoprics  along  the  Rhine  (to  Melanchthon, 
June  17,  1541,  "Briefe,"  5,  p.  370).  "I  suspect  the  Emperor  is  a 
miscreant  ('  quod  sit  nequam'')  and  his  brother  Ferdinand  is  an  abomin- 
able bounder"  (to  Amsdorf,  October  21,  1545,  "  Briefe,"  5,  p.  764). 

3  Commencement  of  the  work  :  "  Zwey  keyserliche  Gepott,"  1524, 
"  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  254  ;   Erl.  ed.,  242,  p.  221. 


106         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

He  boldly  holds  up  his  Evangel  as  the  German  preaching  par 
excellence.  He  declares  :  "I  seek  the  welfare  and  salvation  of 
you  Germans."1 — "We  Germans  have  heard  the  true  Word  of 
God  for  many  years,  by  which  means  God,  the  Father  of  all  Mercy, 
has  enlightened  us  and  called  us  from  the  horrible  abominations 
of  the  Papal  darkness  and  idolatry  into  His  holy  light  and 
Kingdom.  But  with  what  gratitude  and  honesty  we  have 
accepted  and  practised  it,  it  is  terrible  to  contemplate." 

Formerly,  he  says,  we  filled  every  corner  with  idolatries  such 
as  Masses,  Veneration  of  the  Saints,  and  good  works,  but  now 
we  persecute  the  dear  Word,  so  that  it  would  not  be  surprising 
should  God  flood  Germany,  not  only  with  Turks,  but  with  real 
devils ;  indeed,  it  is  a  wonder  He  has  not  done  so  already. 2 

However  small  the  hope  was  of  any  improvement  resulting 
from  his  preaching,  he  fomented  the  incipient  schism  by  such 
words  as  these  :  "  They  [the  Romans]  have  always  abused  our 
simplicity  by  their  wantonness  and  tyranny  ;  they  call  us  mad 
Germans,  who  allow  themselves  to  be  hoaxed  and  made  fools  of. 
.  .  .  We  are  supposed  to  have  an  Empire,  but  it  is  the  Pope  who 
has  our  possessions,  honour,  body,  soul  and  everything  else.  .  .  . 
Thus  the  Pope  feeds  on  the  kernel  and  we  nibble  at  the  empty 
shells."3 

Finally,  there  are  some  who  select  certain  traits  of 
Luther's  character  in  order  to  represent  him  as  the  type  of 
a  true  German.  Such  specifically  German  characteristics 
were  certainly  not  lacking  in  Luther  ;  it  would  be  strange, 
indeed,  were  this  not  the  case  in  a  man  of  German  stock, 
hailing  from  the  lower  class  and  who  was  always  in  close 
touch  with  his  compatriots.-  Luther  was  inured  to  fatigue, 
simple  in  his  appearance  and  habits,  persevering  and  endur- 
ing ;  in  intercourse  with  his  friends  he  was  frank,  hearty 
and  unaffected  ;  with  them  he  was  sympathetic,  amiable 
and  fond  of  a  joke  ;  he  did  not,  however,  shrink  from  telling 
them  the  truth  even  when  thereby  offence  might  be  given  ; 
towards  the  Princes  who  were  well-disposed  to  him  and  his 
party  he  behaved  with  an  easy  freedom  of  manner,  not 
cringingly  or  with  any  exaggerated  deference.  In  a  sense 
all  these  are  German  traits.4    But  many  of  these  qualities, 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  3,  p.  291  ;  Erl.  ed.,  252,  p.  22  in  the 
"  Warnunge  "  referred  to  above. 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  32,  p.  75.  "  Vermanunge  zum  Gebet  wider 
den  Turcken.' 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6.  p.  4G3  f  ;  Erl.  ed.,  21,  p.  352  f.  "  An 
den  christl.  Adel." 

4  It  will  not  be  possible  to  enter  one  by  one  into  the  somewhat 
remarkable  reasons  assigned  in  the  popular  Protestant  biographies  of 
Luther  as  to  why  Luther  should  be  regarded  as  the  type  of  the  German 


THE  TYPICAL   GERMAN  107 

albeit  good  in  themselves,  owing  to  his  public  controversy, 
assumed  a  very  unpleasant  character.  His  perseverance 
degenerated  into  obstinacy  and  defiance,  his  laborious 
endurance  into  a  passionate  activity  which  overtaxed  his 
powers,  and  he  became  combative  and  quarrelsome  and 
found  his  greatest  pleasure  in  the  discomfiture  of  his 
opponents ;  his  frankness  made  way  for  the  coarsest 
criticism.  The  anger  against  the  Church  which  carried  him 
along  found  expression  in  the  worst  sorts  of  insults,  and, 
when  his  violence  had  aroused  bitter  feelings,  he  believed, 
or  at  least  alleged,  he  was  merely  acting  in  the  interests  of 
uprightness  and  love  of  truth.  Had  he  preserved  his 
heritage  of  good  German  qualities,  perfected  them  and 
devoted  them  to  the  service  of  a  better  cause,  he  might 
have  become  the  acknowledged  spokesman  of  all  Germans 
everywhere.  He  could  have  branded  vice  and  instilled  into 
the  hearts  of  his  countrymen  the  love  of  virtue  more  strongly 
and  effectively  than  even  Geiler  of  Kaysersberg  ;  in  sea- 
soned and  effective  satire  on  matters  of  morals  he  would 


character.  We  there  read,  that  the  stamp  of  the  German  character  is 
to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  he  "  always  acted  upon  impulse  " — which 
seems  to  be  based  on  the  correct  view  of  Luther  as  a  child  of  impulse, 
who  allowed  himself  to  be  carried  away  by  his  feelings.  The  following 
reason  is  less  clear,  viz.  that  he  was  "  A  German  through  and  through 
because  he  sought  for  the  roots  of  all  life,  of  the  family,  the  race,  the 
State  and  civilisation,  in  personality  as  directly  determined  by  feeling." 
Reference  is  frequently  made  to  Luther's  frank  and  upright  character 
and  to  his  undaunted  love  of  truth.  The  facts  bearing  upon  this  point, 
already  adduced,  or  to  be  dealt  with  in  chapter  xxii.  of  the  present 
work  (vol.  iv. ),  dispense  us  from  treating  of  this  matter  here.  To  base 
Luther's  claim  to  being  a  typical  German  on  his  manner  of  speech  is  to 
run  the  risk  of  bringing  Germans  into  disrepute,  if  we  recall  the  rude 
invective  in  which  he  often  indulges  and  which  he  employs  when,  as  he 
says,  he  is  speaking  plain  German  to  his  opponents.  "  This  is  the 
German  way  of  speaking,"  he  constantly  repeats  after  explosions  of 
anger  and  vulgar  abuse.  This,  for  instance,  is  the  way  in  which  he 
gives  the  "  Romans  a  German  answer."  On  one  occasion  he  describes 
in  a  repulsive  manner  how  the  "  strumpet  church  of  the  Pope  "  behaves  : 
"  She  plays  the  whore  with  everyone,"  is  an  "  apostate,  runaway, 
wedded  whore,  a  house- whore,  a  bed- whore  "  ;  compared  with  her 
"  light  women  are  holy,  for  she  is  the  devil's  own  whore,"  who  makes 
of  many  of  the  faithful  virgins  of  Christ,  born  in  baptism,  arch-whores. 
This  is  what  I  call  plain  German  speaking,  and  you  and  everyone  can 
understand  what  I  mean."  On  the  same  page  he  continues  :  "It 
has  happened  to  them  [the  Papists]  according  to  the  proverb  :  the  dog 
has  returned  to  his  vomit  and  the  sow  that  was  washed  to  wallow  in 
the  mire.  That  is  what  you  are,  and  what  I  once  was.  There  you  have 
your  new,  apostate,  runaway  churches  described  for  you  in  plain 
German."    "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  262,  p.  46.    "  Wider  Hans  Worst,"  1541. 


108         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

have  far  excelled  Sebastian  Brant  and  Thomas  Murner ; 
in  depth  of  feeling  and  sympathetic  expression  he  could  have 
rivalled  Bertold  of  Ratisbon,  and  his  homely  ways  would 
have  qualified  him  to  enforce  the  Christian  precepts  amongst 
all  the  grades  and  conditions  of  German  life  even  more 
effectively  than  any  previous  preacher. 


CHAPTER    XVI 

THE   DIVINE   MISSION   AND   ITS   MANIFESTATIONS 

1.   Growth  of  Luther's  Idea  of  his  Divine  Mission 

Whereas  the  most  zealous  of  Luther's  earliest  pupils 
and  followers  outvied  one  another  in  depicting  their 
master  as  the  messenger  of  God,  who  had  come 
before  the  world  equipped  with  revelations  from  on 
high,  the  tendency  of  later  Protestantism  has  been,  more 
and  more,  to  reduce  Luther,  so  to  speak,  to  a  merely 
natural  level,  and  to  represent  him  as  a  hero  indeed, 
but  as  one  inspired  by  merely  human  motives.  An  earlier 
generation  exalted  him  to  mystical  regions,  and,  being 
nearer  him  in  point  of  time  and  therefore  knowing  him 
better,  grasped  the  fact  that  he  was  dominated  by  a  certain 
supernaturalism.  Many  later  and  more  recent  writers,  on 
the  other  hand,  have  preferred  to  square  their  conception  of 
his  personality  with  their  own  liberal  views  on  religion. 
They  hail  Luther  as  the  champion  of  free  thought  and 
therefore  as  the  founder  of  modern  intellectual  life.  What 
he  discovered  in  his  struggles  with  himself  by  reflection  and 
pious  meditation,  that,  they  say,  he  bequeathed  to  posterity 
without  insisting  upon  the  immutability  of  his  ideas  or 
claiming  for  them  any  infallibility.  His  only  permanent 
work,  his  real  legacy  to  posterity,  was  a  negative  one, 
viz.  the  breach  with  Popery,  which  he  consummated,  thanks 
to  his  extraordinary  powers. 

This  is,  however,  from  the  religious  standpoint,  to  attenu- 
ate Luther's  figure  as  it  appears  in  history,  notwithstanding 
the  tribute  paid  to  his  talents. 

If  he  is  not  the  "messenger  of  God,"  whose  doctrines, 
inspired  from  on  high,  the  world  was  bound  to  accept, 
then  he  ceases  to  be  Luther,  for  it  was  from  his  supernatural 
estimate  of  himself  that  he  drew  all  his  strength  and  defiance. 

109 


110         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

Force  him  to  quit  the  dim,  mystical  heights  from  which  he 
fancies  he  exercises  his  sway,  and  his  claim  on  the  faith  of 
mankind  becomes  inexplicable  and  he  himself  an  enigma. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  above,  how  Luther  gradually 
reached  the  conviction  that  he  had  received  his  doctrine 
by  a  special  revelation,  with  the  Divine  mission  to  com- 
municate it  to  the  world  and  to  reform  the  Church  (vol.  ii., 
p.  92  f.).  The  conviction,  that,  as  he  declares,  "  the  Holy 
Ghost  had  revealed  the  Scriptures  "  to  him  culminated  in 
that  personal  assurance  of  salvation  which  was  suddenly 
vouchsafed  to  him  in  the  Tower.1 

It  will  repay  us  to  examine  more  closely  the  nature  of  this 
idea,  and  its  manifestations,  now  that  we  have  the  mature 
man  before  us. 

The  founder  of  the  new  Church  has  reached  a  period 
when  he  no  longer  scruples  to  speak  of  the  "  revelations  " 
which  had  been  made  to  him,  and  which  he  is  compelled  to 
proclaim.  "  By  His  Grace,"  he  says,  "  God  has  revealed  this 
doctrine  to  me."2 — "  I  have  it  by  revelation  .  .  .  that  will 
I  not  deny."3  Of  his  mission  he  assures  us  ;  "  By  God's 
revelation  I  am  called  to  be  a  sort  of  antipope  "  ;4  of  his 
chief  dogma,  he  will  have  it  that  "  the  Holy  Ghost  bestowed 
it  upon  me,"5  and  declares  that  "  under  pain  of  the  curse  of 
eternal  reprobation  "  he  had  been  "  instructed  ('  intermi- 
natum  ' )  not  to  doubt  of  it  in  any  way."  6  Of  this  he  solemnly 
assured  the  Elector  Frederick  in  a  letter  written  in  1522.: 
"  Concerning  my  cause  I  would  say  :  Your  Electoral  High- 
ness is  aware,  or,  if  not  aware,  is  hereby  apprised  of  the  fact, 
that  I  received  the  Evangel,  not  from  man,  but  from  heaven 

1  Cp.  vol.  i.,  p.  396  f.,  his  statements  concerning  the  incident  in  the 
Tower.    See  also  vol.  i.,  p.  166  ff.,  and  p.  280  ff. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  20,  p.  674.  "  Hanc  doctrinam  mihi  (Deus) 
revelavit  per  gratiam  suam."    In  1527. 

3  Cpchlaeus  in  his  account  (June  12,  1521)  of  his  conversation  with 
Luther  at  Worms  :  "  Est  mihi  revelatum,"  etc.  In  Enders'  reprint, 
"  Luthers  Brief wechsel,"  3,  p.   176;    in  the  new  edition  by  Greving 

"  Flugschrif ten  -  aus  der  Reformationszeit,"  4,  3,  1910),  p.  19. 

4  "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  7,  p.  23  (a.  1523). 

5  "  Lauterbachs  Tagebuch,"  p.  81,  n. 

6  Khummer  in  "  Lauterbachs  Tagebuch,"  p.  62,  n.  :  "  Doctor 
Martinus  Lutherus  indignus  sum,  sed  dignus  fui  creari  .  .  .  redimi  .  .  . 
doceri  a  fllio  Dei  et  Spiritu  sancto,  fui  {dignus)  cui  ministerium  verbi 
crederetur,  fui  qui  pro  eo  tarda  pater er,  fui  qui  in  tot  malis  servarer,  fui 
cui  prceciperetur  ista  credere,  fui  cili  sub  03ternce  iro3  maledictione 
interminaretur,  ne  ullo  modo  de  Us  dubitarem"  Cp.  "  Brief  e,"  5,  p.  324, 
and  6,  p.  520,  n.  6. 


HIS   DIVINE   MISSION  111 

alone  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  so  that  I  might  well 
subscribe  myself  and  boast  of  being  a  minister  and  evangelist 
— as,  indeed,  I  shall  do  for  the  future."1 

It  is  because  he  has  received  the  Word  of  God  direct  from 
on  high  that  he  is  so  firm.  "  God's  Word,"  he  cries,  "  is 
above  everything  to  me  ;  I  have  the  Divine  Majesty  on  my 
side,  therefore  I  care  not  in  the  least  though  a  thousand 
Augustines,  or  a  thousand  Harry-Churches  [Henry  VIII.  of 
England  was  then  still  a  Catholic]  should  be  against  me  ;  I 
am  quite  certain  that  the  true  Church  holds  fast  with  me 
to  God's  Word,  and  leaves  it  to  the  Harry-Churches  to 
depend  on  the  words  of  men."2 

There  are  many  passages  in  which  he  merely  claims  to 
have  been  enlightened  in  his  ruminations  and  labours 
and  thus  led  to  embrace  the  real,  saving  truth ;  less 
frequently  do  we  hear  of  any  actual,  sudden  inspiration 
from  above.  Where  he  does  claim  this  most  distinctly  is 
in  the  matter  of  the  discovery  of  his  chief  doctrine,  viz. 
assurance  of  salvation  by  justifying  faith,  vouchsafed  to 
him  in  the  Tower  of  the  Wittenberg  monastery.  The  fact 
that  his  mode  of  expression  varies  may  be  explained  not 
merely  by  his  own  involuntary  wavering,  but  by  the  very 
difficulty  of  imparting  his  favourite  doctrine  to  others.  His 
frame  of  mind,  outward  circumstances  and  the  character  of 
his  hearers  or  readers  were  the  cause  of  his  choice  of  words. 
With  his  friends,  for  instance,  more  particularly  the  younger 
ones,  and  likewise  in  his  sermons  at  Wittenberg,  he  was  fond 
of  laying  stress  on  what  he  had  once  said  to  the  lawyers 
when  they  molested  him  with  Canon  Law  :  "  They  shall 
respect  our  teaching,  which  is  the  Word  of  God  spoken  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  through  our  lips,"3  When  speaking  to 
larger  audiences,  on  the  other  hand,  he  does  not  as  a  rule 
claim  more  than  a  gradual,  inner  enlightenment  by  God, 
which  indeed  partakes  of  the  nature  of  a  revelation,  but  to 
which  he  was  led  by  his  work  and  study  and  inward  ex- 
perience. In  the  presence  of  the  fanatics  he  became,  after 
1524,  more  cautious  in  his  claims,  owing  to  the  similar  ones 
made  on  their  own  behalf  by  these  sectarians. 

1  On  March  5,  1522,  at  Borna,  on  the  journey  from  the  Wartburg  to 
Wittenberg.     "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  106  ( Brief wechsel,"  3,  p.  296). 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim,  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  256  ;  Erl.  ed.,  28,  p.  379,  in  the 
work:  "Antwort  auff  Konig  Henrichs  Buch,"  1522. 

3  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  276.     "Table-Talk." 


112         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

Yet  the  idea  of  an  assurance  born  of  God  lies  at  the  bottom 
of  all  his  statements. 

He  worked  himself  into  this  belief  until  it  became  part  of 
his  nature.1  He  had  to  face  many  doubts  and  scruples,  but 
he  overcame  them,  and,  in  the  latter  years  of  his  life,  we 
hear  little  of  any  such.  His  struggle  with  these  doubts, 
which  clearly  betray  the  faulty  basis  of  his  conviction,  will 
be  dealt  with  elsewhere.2 

"  I  am  certain  and  am  determined  to  feel  so."  Expres- 
sions such  as  this  arc  not  seldom  to  be  met  with  in  Luther's 
letters  and  writings.3 

An  almost  appalling  strength  of  will  lurks  behind  such 
assurances.  Indeed,  what  impels  him  seems  to  savour  more 
of  self-suggestion  than  of  inward  experience.  To  the  objec- 
tions brought  forward  by  his  adversaries  he  frequently 
enough  merely  opposes  his  "  certainty  "  ;  behind  this 
he  endeavours  to  conceal  the  defects  of  his  proofs  from 
Scripture,  and  his  inability  to  reply  to  the  reasons  urged 
against  him.  His  determination  to  find  conviction  consti- 
tutes one  of  Luther's  salient  psychological  characteristics  ; 
of  the  Titanic  strength  at  his  disposal  he  made  proof  first 
and  foremost  in  his  own  case. 

Luther  also  succeeded  in  inducing  in  himself  a  pseudo- 
mystic  mood  in  which  he  fancied  himself  acting  in  every- 
thing conformably  with  a  Divine  mission,  everywhere 
specially  guided  and  protected  as  beseemed  a  messenger  of 
God. 

For  instance,  he  says  that  he  wrote  the  pamphlet  against 
the  seditious  peasants  in  obedience  to  a  Divine  command ; 
"  therefore  my  little  book  is  right  and  will  always  be  so, 
though  all  the  world  should  be  incensed  at  it."4 

"It  is  the  Lord  Who  has  done  this,"  he  had  declared  of 
the  Peasant  Rising  when  he  recognised  in  it  elements  favour- 
able to  his  cause  ;  "  It  is  the  Lord  Who  has  done  this  and 
Who  conceals  these  menaces  and  dangers  from  the  eyes  of 
the  Princes,  and  will  even  bring  it  about  Himself  by  means 
of  their  blindness   and  violence."     That  the  Princes   are 

1  See  vol.  vi.,  xxxvi.  4.  2  See  vol.  v.,  xxxii. 

3  See,  for  instance,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  18,  p.  641  :  "  Opp.  lat. 
var.,"  7,  p.  162  seq.     "  De  servo  arbitrio"  1525. 

4  Cp.  Janssen,  "Hist,  of  the  German  People"  (Eng.  Trans.),  4, 
p.  314.     Cp.  our  vol.  ii.,  p.  208. 


HIS  DIVINE  MISSION  113 

threatened  with  destruction,  that  "  I  firmly  believe  the 
Spirit  proclaims  through  me."1 

Later  on  he  was  no  less  sure  that  he  could  foresee  in  the 
Spirit  the  coming  outbreak  of  a  religious  war  in  Germany  ; 
only  the  prayers  which  he — who  had  the  Divine  interests 
so  much  at  heart — offered,  could  avail  to  stave  off  the  war  ; 
at  least  the  delay  was  mainly  the  result  of  this  prayer  :  "I 
am  assured  that  God  really  hearkens  to  my  prayer,  and  I 
know  that  so  long  as  I  live  there  will  be  no  war  in  Germany." 

Never  does  he  tire  of  declaring  that  the  misfortunes  and 
deaths  which  his  foes  have  to  deplore  are  the  result  of  the 
intervention  of  heaven  on  behalf  of  his  cause.2  He  was  con- 
vinced that  he  had  repeatedly  been  cured  in  sickness  and 
saved  from  death  by  Christ,  by  Him,  as  he  says  in  1534, 
"  in  Whose  faith  I  commenced  all  this  and  carried  it  through, 
to  the  admiration  even  of  my  opponents."3  He,  "  one  of  the 
Apostles  and  Evangelists  of  Germany,  is,"  so  he  proclaims 
in  1526  in  a  pamphlet,  "  a  man  delivered  over  to  death  and 
only  preserved  in  life  by  a  wonder  and  in  defiance  of  the 
wrath  of  the  devil  and  his  saints."4 

In  February,  1520,  he  speaks  of  the  intimation  he  has 
received  of  a  great  storm  impending,  were  God  not  to  place 
some  hindrance  in  the  way  of  Satan.  "  I  have  seen  Satan's 
cunning  plans  for  my  destruction  and  that  of  many  others. 
Doubtless  the  Divine  Word  can  never  be  administered  wit  h- 
out  confusion,  tumult  and  danger.  It  is  a  word  of  boundless 
majesty,  it  works  great  things  and  is  wonderful  on  high." 
This  was  to  be  his  only  guide  in  his  undertaking.  He  was 
compelled,  so  he  declared  on  the  same  occasion,  "  to  leave 
the  whole  matter  to  God,  to  resign  himself  to  His  guidance 
and  to  look  on  while  wind  and  waves  make  the  ship  their 
plaything."5 

He  frequently  repeats  later  that  his  professorship  at  the 
University  had  been  bestowed  upon  him  by  a  Divine  dis- 
pensation   and    against    his    will ;     whereas    others    were 

1  To  Wenceslaus  Link,  March  19,  1522,  "  Brief wechsel,"  3,  p.  315. 

2  See,  for  instance,  iv.,  xxvi.,  2. 

3  Cp.  for  instance,  his  letter  to  Nicholas  Amsdorf ,  about  March  1 1 , 
1534,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  10,  p.  23. 

4  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  19,  p.  261,  in  the  work  "  Widder  den 
Radschlag  der  gantzen  Meintzischen  Pfafferey." 

5  To  Spalatin,  February,  1520,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  2,  p.  344  :  "  Data 
est  mihi  notio  futuraz  alicuius  insignia  turbulce.  .  .  .  Vidi  cogitationes 
edits  (Satance)  artificiosissimas"  etc. 

III.— I 


114         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

honoured  for  their  academic  labours,  he  complains  to 
Spalatin  of  being  persecuted  ;  "I  teach  against  my  wiD 
and  yet  I  have  to  endure  evil  things."  "  What  I  now  do  and 
have  done,  I  was  compelled  to  do."  "  I  have  enough  sins 
on  my  conscience  without  incurring  the  unpardonable  one 
of  being  unfaithful  to  my  office,  of  refraining  from  scourging 
evil  and  of  neglecting  the  truth  to  the  detriment  of  so  many 
thousand  souls."1 — At  the  time  when  the  Disputation  at 
Leipzig  was  preparing,  he  tells  the  same  confidant  that 
the  matter  must  be  left  to  God  :  "  I  do  not  desire  that  it 
should  happen  according  to  our  designs,  otherwise  I  would 
prefer  to  desist  from  it  altogether."  Spalatin  must  not 
desire  to  see  the  matter  judged  and  settled  according  to 
human  wisdom,  but  should  remember  that  we  know  nothing 
of  "  Gcd's  plans."2 

Everything  had  befallen  him  in  accordance  with  God's 
design.  It  was  in  accordance  therewith,  nay,  "  at  the  com- 
mand of  God,"  that  he  had  become  a  monk,  so  at  least  he 
says  later.  This,  too,  was  his  reason  for  giving  up  the 
office  in  choir  and  the  recitation  of  the  Breviary.  "  Our 
Lord  God  dragged  me  by  force  from  the  canonical  hours, 
anno  1520."3  His  marriage  likewise  was  the  direct  result 
of  God's  plan.  "  The  Lord  suddenly  flung  me  into  matri- 
mony in  a  wonderful  way  while  my  thoughts  were  set  in 
quite  another  direction."4  At  an  earlier  d#ate  he  had,  so  he 
said,  defended  the  theses  of  his  Resolutions  only  "  because 
God  compelled  him  to  advance  all  these  propositions."5 

His  first  encounter  with  Dr.  Eck  took  place,  so  he  was 
persuaded,  "  at  God's  behest."6  "  God  takes  good  care  that 
I  should  not  be  idle."7  It  is  God  Who  "  calls  and  compels 
him  "  to  return  to  Wittenberg  after  his  stay  at  the  Wart- 
burg.8 — It  is  not  surprising,  then,  that  he  also  attributes 
to  God's  doing  the  increase  in  the  number  of  his  friends  and 
followers. 

1  To  Spalatin,  July  9,  1520,  "  Brief wechsel,"  2,  p.  429  f. 

2  In  1519,  after  February  24,  ibid.,  2,  p.  6. 

3  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  6. 

4  To  Wenceslaus  Link  on  June  20,  1525,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  1,  p.  201. 

5  Cp.  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,'  p.  185. 

6  To  Christoph  Scheurl,  February  20,  1519,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  1, 
p.  433  :    "  Dei  consilium." 

7  To  Staupitz,  February  20,  1519,  ibid.,  1,  p.  431. 

8  To  the  Elector  Frederick  of  Saxony,  March  7,  1522,  "  Werke," 
ErL  ed.,  53,  p.  109   ("  Brief  wechsel,"  3,  p.  298). 


HIS  DIVINE  MISSION  115 

The  success  of  his  efforts  to  bring  about  a  great  falling 
away  from  the  Catholic  Church  he  regarded  as  a  clear 
Divine  confirmation  of  his  mission,  so  that  "  no  higher  proof 
or  miracle  was  needed."1  Even  the  disturbance  and  tumult 
which  resulted  bore  witness  in  his  favour,  since  Christ  says  : 
"  1  am  come  to  send  a  sword."  All  around  him  prevailed 
"  discord,  revolt  and  uproar,"2  because,  forsooth,  the  Gospel 
was  there  at  work  ;  the  calm,  unquestioned  sovereignty  of 
Popery  within  its  own  boundaries  was  a  sure  sign  of  its 
being  the  devil's  own.3  "  Did  I  not  meet  with  curses,  I 
should  not  believe  that  my  cause  was  from  God."4 

It  is  evident  from  these  and  other  like  statements  how 
greatly  his  fame,  the  increase  of  his  followers  and  his  un- 
expected success  engrossed  and  intoxicated  him.  In  judging 
of  him  we  must  not  under-estimate  the  effect  of  the  din  of 
applause  in  encouraging  him  in  his  self-suggestion.  The 
cheers  of  so  great  a  crowd,  as  Erasmus  remarked  in  a  letter 
to  Melanchthon,  might  well  have  turned  the  head  even  of 
the  humblest  man.  What  anchor  could  have  held  the  bark 
exposed  to  such  a  storm  ?  Outbursts  such  as  the  following,  to 
which  Luther  gave  vent  under  the  influence  of  the  deafening 
ovation,  were  only  to  be  expected  of  such  a  man  as  he, 
when  he  had  once  cut  himself  adrift  from  the  Church  : 
"  God  has  now  given  judgment  .  .  .  and,  contrary  to  the 
expectation  of  the  whole  world,  has  brought  things  to  such 
a  pass.  .  .  .  The  position  of  the  Pope  grows  daily  worse, 
that  we  may  extol  the  work  of  God  herein."5  Under  the 
magic  influence  of  the  unhoped-for  growth  of  his  movement 
of  revolt,  he  declared  it  could  only  be  due  to  a  higher  power, 
"  which  so  disposed  things  that  even  the  gates  of  hell  were 
unable  to  prevent  them."  Not  he,  but  "  another  man, 
drives  the  wheel."  It  is  as  clear  as  day  that  no  man  could, 
single-handed,  have  achieved  so  much,  and,  by  "  mere 
word  of  mouth,"  done  more  harm  to  the  Pope,  the  bishops, 
priests  and  monks  than  all  worldly  powers  hitherto.6  Christ 
was  working  for  him  so  strenuously,  so  he  declares  in  all 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  7,  p.  280  ;  Erl.  ed.,  27,  p.  217.  In  1521. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  281  =  219.  3  Ibid.,  p  281  =  218. 

4  To  Spalatin,  January  14,  1519,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  1,  p.  351. 

5  To  the  Archbishop  of  Mayence,  December   1,    1521,   "  Werke," 
Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  97  ("  Briefwechsel,"  3,  p.  251). 

8  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  22,  p.  53.  "Von  welltlicher  Uberkeytt," 
1523. 


116         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

seriousness,  that  he  might  well  calmly  await  His  complete 
victory  over  Antichrist ;  for  this  reason  there  was  really  no 
need  to  trouble  about  the  ecclesiastical  organisation  of  the 
new  Church,  or  to  think  of  all  the  things  it  would  otherwise 
have  been  necessary  for  him  to  remember. 

His  mere  success  was  not  the  only  Divine,  witness  in  his 
favour ;  Luther  was  also  of  opinion  that  owing  to  God's 
notable  working,  signs  and  wonders  had  taken  place  in 
plenty  in  confirmation  of  the  new  teaching ;  such  Divine 
wonders,  however,  must  not  be  "  thrown  to  the  winds."1 
He  seems,  nevertheless,  to  have  had  at  one  time  the  intention 
of  collecting  and  publishing  these  miracles.2 

In  short,  "  the  first-fruits  of  the  Grace  of  God,"  he  says, 
have  come  upon  us  ;  in  these  he  was  unwilling  that  later 
teachers,  who  differed  from  him,  should  be  allowed  to 
participate.3 

Was  not  the  guidance  of  Christ  also  plainly  visible  in  the 
fact  that  he,  the  proclaimer  of  His  Word,  had  been  delivered 
from  so  many  ambushes  on  the  part  of  the  enemies  who 
lay  in  wait  for  him  ?  Such  a  thought  lay  at  the  root  of  his 
words  to  his  pupil  Mathesius  :  There  was  no  doubt  that 
poison  had  frequently  been  administered  to  him,  but  "  an 
important  personage  had  been  heard  to  say,  that  none  had 
any  effect  on  him."  On  one  occasion,  however,  when  an 
attempt  had  been  made  to  poison  him,  He  "  Who  said,  '  If 
they  drink  any  deadly  thing  it  shall  not  hurt  them,'  blessed 
him,  and  preserved  him  then  and  afterwards  from  all 
mischief."4  "  I  also  believe,"  Luther  once  said,  according 
to  Bindseil's  Latin  "  Colloquial  that  "  my  pulpit-chair  and 
cushion  were  frequently  poisoned,  yet  God  preserved  me."5 
Similar  words  are  recorded  in  the  Diary  of  Cordatus.6  This 
accounts  for  the  strange  tales  which  grew  up  amongst  his 
pupils  and  followers  of  how  "  God  Almighty  had  always 
preserved  him  in  a  wonderful  manner,"  of  how  He  "  had 
affrighted  the  knaves  "  who  sought  his  life,  and  so  forth,  of 
which  the  early  editions  of  Luther's  Works  have  so  much 
to  say. 

1  See  below,  p.  153  ff.  2  Ibid. 

3  To  the  Elector  Frederick  and  Duke  Johann  of  Saxony,  in  July, 
1524,  "  Brief wechsel,"  4,  p.  372.  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  263  f.  He 
admits  that  he  has  not  "  the  fulness  of  the  Spirit." 

4  Mathesius,  "  Historien,"  pp.  195',  196. 

5  "  Colloq.,"  ed  Bindseil,  3,  p.  156.  6  P.  150. 


HIS  DIVINE  MISSION  117 

Among  the  characteristics  most  highly  extolled  by  his 
earliest  followers  as  exemplifying  his  mission  must  be 
instanced,  first,  his  inflexible  courage,  amounting  frequently 
to  foolhardiness,  in  the  accomplishment  of  his  set  task,  viz. 
the  establishing  of  the  Evangel  and  the  destruction  of 
Popery  ;  secondly,  his  extraordinary  capacity  for  work  and 
the  perseverance  of  which  he  gave  such  signal  proof  in  his 
literary  undertakings ;  thirdly,  his  entire  disregard  for 
temporal  advantages,  which  he  himself  held  up  as  an 
example  to  those  of  the  evangelical  preachers  whose  worldli- 
ness  had  become  a  reproach  to  the  Lutheran  cause. 

Very  strange  and  remarkable  is  the  connection  between 
Luther's  mysticism  and  the  simple  and  homely  view  he  took 
of  life  ;  the  pleasure  with  which  he  welcomed  everything 
good  which  came  in  his  way — so  far  as  it  was  free  from  any 
trace  of  Popery — the  kindly,  practical  turn  of  his  manner 
of  thinking  and  acting  when  among  his  own  people,  and 
that  love  for  humour  and  good  cheer  which  so  strikingly 
contrasts  with  the  puritanical  behaviour  of  his  opponents, 
the  Anabaptists  and  fanatics. 

To  reconcile  his  mysticism  with  habits  at  first  blush  so 
divergent  would  present  quite  a  problem  in  itself  were  we 
not  to  take  into  account  the  fact,  that  homeliness  and 
humour  had  been  his  from  the  very  beginning,  whereas  his 
mysticism  was  a  later  growth,  always  to  some  extent  alien 
to  his  character.  His  mysticism  he  carefully  confined  to 
what  related  to  his  supposed  Divine  mission,  though  at  times 
he  does  indeed  seem  to  extend  indefinitely  the  range  of  this 
mission.  Yet,  when  the  duties  of  his  office  had  cost  him 
pain  or  tried  his  temper,  he  was  ever  glad  to  return  to  the 
realities  of  life,  and  to  seek  relief  in  social  intercourse  or  in 
his  family  circle. 

When  it  was  a  question  of  the  working  of  miracles  by  the 
heaven-sent  messenger,  he  was  of  too  practical  a  turn  of 
mind  to  appeal  to  anything  but  the  ostensible  tokens  of  the 
Divine  favour  worked  around  him  and  on  his  behalf  in 
proof  of  the  truth  of  the  new  Evangel.  He  carefully 
avoided  attributing  any  miracles  to  his  own  powers,  even 
when  assisted  by  Divine  grace,  though,  occasionally,  he 
seems  to  imply  that,  were  the  need  to  arise,  he  might  well 
work  wonders  by  the  power  of  God,  were  he  only  to 
ask  it  of   Him.     With  the  question  of  miracles  and  pre- 


118         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

dictions  as  proofs  of  Luther's  Divine  mission  we  shall  deal 
later  (p.  153  ff.). 

While  on  the  one  hand  Luther's  views  of  miracles  and 
prophecies  witness  to  an  error  which  was  not  without  effect 
on  his  persuasion  of  his  Divine  mission,  on  the  other  his 
pseudo-mystic  notion  of  his  special  calling  led  him  super- 
stitiously  to  see  in  chance  events  of  history  either  the 
extraordinary  confirmation  of  his  mission  or  the  celestial 
condemnation  of  Popery. 

We  know  that  Luther  not  only  shared  the  superstitions 
of  his  contemporaries,  but  also  defended  them  with  all  the 
weight  of  his  great  name  and  literary  talents.1  When  at 
Vienna,  in  January,  1520,  something  unusual  was  perceived 
in  the  sky,  he  at  once  referred  it  to  "  his  tragedy,"  as  he  had 
done  even  previously  in  similar  cases.  He  also  expressed 
the  wish  that  he  himself  might  be  favoured  with  some  such 
sign.  The  noisy  spirits  which  had  formerly  disturbed 
people  had,  he  believed,  been  reduced  in  number  through- 
out the  world  solely  owing  to  his  Evangel.  The  omnipo- 
tence of  the  devil  and  the  evil  he  worked  on  men  was,  so  he 
thought,  to  be  restrained  only  by  the  power  of  that  Word 
which  had  again  been  made  known  to  the  world,  thanks  to 
his  preaching.2  It  was  his  intention  to  publish  an  account 
of  the  demoniacal  happenings  which  had  taken  place  in  his 
day  and  which  confirmed  his  mission  ;  he  was  only  pre- 
vented from  doing  this  by  want  of  time.3  To  astrology, 
unlike  Melanchthon,  he  ever  showed  himself  averse. 

Another  clement  which  loomed  large  in  his  persuasion 
that  he  was  a  prophet  was  his  so-called  "  temptations," 
i.e.  the  mental  troubles,  which,  so  he  thought,  were  caused 
by  the  devil  and  which,  coinciding  as  they  often  did  with 
other  sufferings,  were  sometimes  the  cause  of  long  fits  of 
misery  and  dejection.4 

1  See  especially  vol.  v.,  xxxi.  Many  other  proofs  will  be  found 
scattered  throughout  our  volumes. 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  59,  p.  348  ;  60,  p.  31,  70  ;  53,  p.  342  (Letter 
of  the  beginning  of  April,  1525,  to  the  Christians  at  Antwerp,  "  Brief - 
wechsel,"  5,  p.  151,  and  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  18,  p.  547. 

3  His  intention  was  to  collect  the  "  portenta  Satance  "  in  order  to 
make  the  "  salutaria  miracula  Evangelii  quotidie  inundantia  "  known 
everywhere.  Thus  to  Justus  Jonas  on  January  23,  1542,  "  Briefe,"  ed. 
De  Wette,  5,  p.  429. 

4  Regarding  his  psychic  troubles  and  hallucinations,  see  vol. 
vi.,  xxxvi. 


HIS  DIVINE  MISSION  119 

These  temptations  in  their  most  extreme  form  Luther 
compared  with  the  death-agony.  His  extraordinary  ex- 
periences, of  which  he  never  understood  the  pathological 
cause,  were  regarded  by  him  as  God's  own  testimony  to 
his  election.  His  conviction  was  that,  by  imposing  on  him 
these  pangs  of  hell,  God  was  cleansing  him  for  the  grand 
task  assigned  to  him,  even  as  He  had  done  with  other 
favoured  souls  in  the  past.  When  plunged  in  the  abyss  of 
such  sufferings  he  felt  like  St.  Paul,  the  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles,  who  likewise  was  buffeted  by  Satan  (vol.  i.,  p.  381  f .), 
and  whom  he  would  fain  have  emulated  in  his  "  revelations  " 
of  the  Divine  mysteries.  Only  in  the  sequel,  however,  will 
it  be  possible  to  describe  Luther's  pathology  for  the  benefit 
of  those  to  whom  it  may  be  of  interest. 

All  his  troubles,  whether  due  to  doubt  and  sadness  or  to 
the  fury  of  foes  stirred  up  by  Satan  against  him,  he  utilised, 
so  he  tells  us,  as  an  incentive  to  immerse  himself  ever  more 
and  more  in  the  study  of  Holy  Scripture,  to  cultivate  the 
understanding  bestowed  upon  him,  and  to  seek  its  practical 
applications.  "  My  theology  was  not  all  learnt  in  a  day  ; 
I  was  obliged  to  explore  deeper  and  deeper  to  acquire  it.  My 
temptations  helped  me,  for  it  is  impossible  to  understand 
Holy  Scripture  without  experience  and  temptations.  This 
is  what  the  fanatics  and  unruly  spirits  lack,  viz.  that  capital 
gainsay er  the  devil,  who  alone  can  teach  a  man  this.  St. 
Paul  had  a  devil,  who  beat  him  with  his  fists  and  drove  him 
by  the  way  of  temptation  diligently  to  study  Holy  Scripture. 
I  have  had  the  Pope,  the  Universities  and  all  the  scholars, 
and,  behind  them  all,  the  devil,  hanging  round  my  neck  ; 
they  drove  me  to  the  Bible  and  made  me  read  it  until  at 
length  I  reached  the  right  understanding  of  it.  Unless  we 
have  such  a  devil,  we  remain  mere  speculative  theologians, 
for  whose  precious  imaginings  the  world  is  not  much 
better."1  This  casual  saying  of  Luther's  gives  us  a  good 
glimpse  into  his  customary  process  of  thought  when  in 
presence  of  troubles  and  temptations,  great  or  small. 

The  above  passage,  moreover,  agrees  with  many  similar 
statements  of  his,  inasmuch  as,  far  from  ascribing  his 
doctrine  to  any  actual  revelation,  he  makes  its  discovery  to 
result  from  effort  on  his  part,  under  the  guidance  of  a  higher 
illumination.  Luther,  less  than  any  other,  could  scarcely 
1    "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  57,  p.  99. 


120         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

have  been  unconseious  of  the  gradual  ehange  in  his  views. 
more  particularly  at  the  outset  of  his  career  as  Evangelist 
and  prophet ;  at  the  very  least  it  was  clear  that,  in  the 
earlier  period  of  his  higher  mission,  he  had  taught  much 
that  was  borrowed  from  Popery  and  which  he  discarded 
only  later  ;  at  that  time,  as  he  puts  it,  he  was  still  "  besotted 
with  Popery." 


Periodic  Upheaval  of 'Luther 's  Idea  of  his  Divine  Mission. 

Luther's  consciousness  of  his  Divine  mission  found 
expression  with  varying  degrees  of  intensity  at  different 
periods  of  his  life. 

At  certain  junctures,  notably  when  historic  events  were 
impending,  it  was  apt  to  burst  forth,  producing  in  him 
effects  of  a  character  almost  terrifying.  Such  was  the  case, 
for  instance,  in  the  days  which  immediately  preceded  and 
followed  the  proclamation  of  the  Bull  of  Excommunication. 
At  that  time  it  seemed  as  though  every  spirit  of  revolt  had 
entered  into  him  to  use  him  as  a  tool  for  defying  the  authority 
of  the  Church.  Such  was  the  depth  of  his  persuasion,  that 
he,  the  excommunicate,  was  carried  away  to  proclaim  his 
unassailable  prophetic  rights  in  tones  of  the  utmost  con- 
viction. 

Towards  the  end  of  his  stay  at  the  Wartburg  and  during  the 
first  period  of  his  struggle  with  the  Anabaptists  at  Witten- 
berg, we  again  hear  him  insisting  on  his  own  exalted  mission  ; 
owing,  however,  to  the  mystic  illumination  of  which  the 
fanatics  boasted,  his  claims  are  now  based,  not  so  much  on 
mystical  considerations,  as  on  the  "  outward  Word,"  whose 
authentic  representative  he  had,  by  his  works,  proved 
himself  to  be. 

The  loneliness  and  gloom  of  the  Wartburg  and  his 
"  diabolical  "  experiences  there  doubtless  helped  to  convince 
him  yet  more  of  the  reality  of  his  mission.  The  ensuing 
struggle  with  those  of  the  innovators  who  differed  from  him 
and  even  threatened  to  oust  him,  acted  as  a  further  stimulus 
and  aroused  his  powers  of  resistance  to  the  utmost.  Nor 
must  we  forget  the  threatening  attitude  of  the  Imperial 
authorities  at  Nuremberg,  whom  he  was  resolved  to  oppose 
with  the  greatest  determination  ;  only  by  impressing  on 
his   followers  that   he   was   something  more  than   human 


HIS  DIVINE'  MISSION  121 

would  it  be  possible  for  him  successfully  to  hold  in  check  the 
hostility  of  Emperor  and  Princes.  The  supposed  world-wide 
success  of  his  venture  also  dazed  him  at  this  critical  juncture, 
a  fact  which  further  elucidates  the  situation. 

Triumphantly  he  cries  :  "  The  Lord  has  already  begun  to 
mock  at  Satan  and  his  slaves.  Satan  is  in  truth  vanquished, 
and  the  Pope,  too,  with  all  his  abominations  !  Now  our  only 
concern  is  the  soap-bubble  which  has  swelled  to  such  alarming 
dimensions  [the  Nuremberg  menace].  We  believe  in  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  believe  in  His  dominion  over  life  and  death.  Whom 
then  shall  we  fear  ?  The  first-fruits  of  victory  have  already  fallen 
to  us  ;  we  rejoice  at  the  overthrow  of  the  Papal  tyranny,  whereas 
formerly  Kings  and  Princes  were  content  to  submit  to  its  oppres- 
sion ;  how  much  easier  will  it  be  to  vanquish  and  despise  the 
Princes  themselves  !  " 

"  If  Christ  assures  us,"  he  continues  in  this  same  letter,  one  of 
the  first  dispatched  after  his  "  Patmos  "  at  the  Wartburg,  "  that 
the  Father  has  placed  all  things  under  His  feet,  it  is  certain  that 
He  lieth  not  ;  '  all  things  '  must  also  comprise  the  mighty  ones 
assembled  at  Nuremberg,  not  to  speak  of  that  Dresden  bubble 
[Duke  George  of  Saxony].  Let  them  therefore  set  about  deposing 
Christ.  We,  however,  will  calmly  look  on  while  the  Father 
Almighty  preserves  His  Son  at  His  right  hand  from  the  face 
and  the  tail  of  these  smoking  firebrands  "  (Isa.  vii.  4).  Should  a 
rising  or  a  tumult  among  the  people  ensue  "  which  cannot  be 
suppressed  by  force,  then  that  will  be  the  Lord's  own  work  ; 
He  conceals  the  danger  from  the  sight  of  the  Princes  ;  and, 
owing  to  their  blindness  and  rebellion,  He  will  work  such  things 
that  methinks  all  Germany  will  be  deluged  with  blood.  We 
shall  '  set  ourselves  like  a  hedge  before  God  in  favour  of  the  land 
and  the  people  '  (Ezek.  xxii.  30),  in  this  day  of  His  great  wrath, 
wherefore  do  you  and  your  people  pray  for  us." 

These  words  were  addressed  to  an  old  Augustinian  friend  to 
whom  he  showed  himself  undisguisedly  and  in  his  true  colours. 
In  the  same  letter  he  has  it  that  he  considers  it  quite  certain 
that  Carlstadt,  Gabriel  Zwilling  and  the  fanatical  Anabaptists 
were  preaching  without  any  real  call,  in  fact,  against  God's  will.  To 
himself  he  applies  the  words  of  our  Redeemer  :  "  He  Whom  God 
has  sent  speaketh  the  words  of  God  "  (John  iii.  34),  and  "  He 
that  seeketh  the  glory  of  Him  that  sent  Him  is  true  "  (John  vii. 
18).  Fully  convinced  of  the  Divine  inspiration  and  compulsion 
he  exclaims  :  "  For  this  reason  did  I  yield  to  necessity  and 
return  [from  the  Wartburg],  viz.  that  I  might,  if  God  wills,  put 
an  end  to  this  devils'  uproar  "  (of  the  fanatics).1 

1  To  Wenceslaus  Link,  March  19,  1522,  "  Brief wechsel,"  3,  p.  315. 
Link,  as  Staupitz's  successor  in  the  Vicariate  of  the  Order,  had  pro- 
claimed at  the  commencement  of  the  year  in  the  Augustinian  chapter 
at  Wittenberg  the  freedom  of  religious  to  forsake  their  convents  and 
the  abolition  of  the  so-called  "  Corner-Masses,"  which  Luther  refers 
to  in  the  letter  in  question  as  being  a  singular  "  deed  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  * 


122         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

If  Luther  sought  to  show  the  fanatics  that  their  fruits  bore 
witness  against  them  and  their  doctrine,  it  is  worthy  of  note 
that  Staupitz,  his  former  Superior,  about  this  very  time,  con- 
fronted Luther  with  the  disastrous  fruits  of  his  action,  in  order 
to  dissuade  him  from  the  course  he  was  pursuing.  Staupitz, 
who  so  far  had  been  his  patron,  had  grown  apprehensive  of  the 
character  of  the  movement.  His  warning,  however,  only  acted 
as  oil  on  the  flame  of  the  enthusiasm  then  surging  up  in  Luther. 
In  his  reply,  dated  in  May,  1522,  we  find  the  real  Luther,  the 
prophet  full  of  his  own  great  plans  :  "  You  write  that  my  under- 
taking is  praised  [by  discreditable  people],  and  by  those  who 
frequent  houses  of  ill-fame,  and  that  much  scandal  has  been 
given  by  my  latest  writings.  I  am  not  surprised  at  this,  neither 
am  I  apprehensive.  It  is  certain  that  we  for  our  part  have  been 
careful  to  proclaim  the  pure  Word  without  causing  any  tumult  ; 
the  good  and  the  bad  alike  make  use  of  this  Word,  and  this, 
as  you  know,  we  cannot  help.  .  .  .  For  we  do  what  Christ  fore- 
told when  He  commanded  the  angels  to  collect  and  remove  out 
of  His  Kingdom  all  scandals.  Father,  I  cannot  do  otherwise 
than  destroy  the  Kingdom  of  the  Pope,  the  Kingdom  of  abomina- 
tion and  wickedness  together  with  all  its  train.  God  is  already 
doing  this  without  us,  without  any  assistance  from  us,  merely 
by  His  Word.  The  end  of  this  Kingdom  is  come  before  the  Lord. 
The  matter  far  exceeds  our  powers  of  comprehension.  .  .  .  Great 
commotion  of  minds,  great  scandals  and  great  signs  must  follow, 
in  view  of  God's  greatness.  But,  dear  father,  I  hope  this  will  not 
trouble  you  ;  God's  plan  is  visible  in  these  things  and  His  mighty 
hand.  You  will  remember  that  at  the  outset  everybody  thought 
my  undertaking  suspicious,  doubtful  and  altogether  too  bad,  and 
yet  it  has  held  the  field  and  will  hold  its  own  in  spite  of  your 
apprehensions  ;  only  have  patience.  Satan  feels  the  smart  of 
his  wound,  and  that  is  why  he  rages  so  greatly  and  sets  all  at 
loggerheads.  But  Christ  Who  has  begun  the  work  will  trample 
him  under  foot ;  and  the  gates  of  hell  will  do  their  worst,  but 
all  in  vain." 

So  perverted  an  application  of  the  promise  solemnly  made 
by  Christ  to  the  Church  of  Peter,  that  the  gates  of  hell  should 
not  prevail  against  it,  had  surely  never  before  been  heard. 
Words  such  as  these  would  even  sound  incredible  did  we  not 
learn  from  the  same  letter  into  what  a  state  of  nervous  excitement 
the  ban  and  excommunication  had  plunged  him.  At  Antwerp, 
Jacob  Probst,  one  of  his  followers,  was  to  be  burned  with 
two  of  his  comrades,  and  in  various  localities  Luther's  writings, 
by  order  of  the  authorities,  were  being  consigned  to  the  flames. 
This  it  was  which  made  him  say  in  his  letter  :  "  My  death  by 
fire  is  already  under  discussion  ;  but  I  only  defy  Satan  and  his 
myrmidons  the  more  that  the  day  of  Christ  may  be  hastened, 
when  an  end  will  be  put  to  Antichrist.  Farewell,  father,  and  pray 
for  me.  .  .  .  The  Evangel  is  a  scandal  to  the  self-righteous  and 
to  all  who  think  themselves  wise."1 

1  To  Staupitz  at  Salzburg,  Wittenberg,  June  27,  1522,  "  Brief  - 
wechsel,"  3,  p.  406 


HIS  DIVINE  MISSION  123 

The  later  occasions  on  which  this  peculiar  mystic  idea 
asserted  itself  most  strongly  and  vividly  were  during  the 
exciting  events  of  the  Peasant  War  of  1525  ;  in  1528,  at 
the  time  his  Evangel  was  in  danger  from  the  Empire,  while  he 
was  tormented  within  ;  his  sojourn  in  the  fortress  of  Coburg 
during  the  much-dreaded  Diet  of  Augsburg,  in  1530,  when 
he  again  endured  profound  mental  agony  ;  the  period  of  the 
Schmalkald  negotiations,  in  1537,  when  the  Council  of  Trent 
had  already  been  summoned,  while  Luther  was  suffering 
much  from  disease  ;  finally,  in  the  last  years  of  his  life, 
accompanied  as  they  were  by  recurring  friction  with  the 
various  Courts  and  hostile  parties,  when  a  growing  bitterness 
dominated  his  spirit. 

In  this  last  period  of  his  career  the  sense  of  his  Divine 
mission  revived  in  full  force,  never  again  to  quit  him.  His 
statements  concerning  his  mission  now  bear  a  more  pessi- 
mistic stamp,  but  he  nevertheless  holds  fast  to  it  and  allows 
nothing  to  disconcert  him  by  any  suspicion  of  a  mistake  on 
his  part,  nor  does  he  betray  any  trace  of  his  earlier  doubts 
and  misgivings. 

"  We  know  that  it  is  God's  cause,"  he  says  in  1541  to  the 
Electoral  Chancellor  Br  tick  :  "  God  has  commenced  it  and 
carried  it  through,  and  He  too  will  finish  it  !  Whoever  does  not 
wish  to  follow  us,  let  him  fall  to  the  rear,  with  the  Emperor  and 
the  Turk  ;  all  the  devils  shall  gain  nothing  here,  let  what  God 
wills  befall  us."1 

"  It  annoys  me  that  they  should  esteem  these  things  [of  the 
Evangel]  as  though  they  were  secular,  Imperial,  Turkish  or 
princely  matters  to  be  decided  and  controlled,  bestowed  and 
accepted  by  reason  alone.  It  is  a  matter  which  God  and  the 
devil  with  their  respective  angels  must  arrange.  Whoever  does 
not  believe  this  will  do  no  good  in  the  business."2 

When  the  negotiations  at  Ratisbon  seemed  to  be  exposing  the 
timorous  Melanchthon  to  the  "  snares  of  Satan,"  Luther  in  his 
wonted  presumptuous  fashion  wrote  to  him  :  "  Our  cause  is  not 
to  be  controlled  by  our  own  action,  but  only  by  God's  Providence. 
The  Word  progresses,  prayer  is  ardent,  hope  endures,  faith 
conquers,  so  that  verily  we  cannot  but  see  it,  and  might  even 
sleep  calmly  and  feast  were  we  not  so  carnal  ;  for  the  words  of 
Moses  are  also  addressed  to  us  :  '  The  Lord  will  fight  for  you 
and  you  shall  hold  your  peace  '  (cp.  Exod.  xiv.  14).     It  is  certain 

1  Beginning  of  April,  "  Letters,"  ed.  De  Wette,  5,  p.  339.  Cp.  a 
similar  statement  made  to  the  Elector  on  June  24,  1541,  ibid.,  p.  373  : 
"  God,  Who  has  begun  it  without  our  strength  or  reason,  will  carry  it 
out  as  He  sees  best  "  (of  the  Ratisbon  Interim). 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  339,  340. 


124         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

that  the  Lord  is  fighting,  that  He  is  slowly  and  gradually  descend- 
ing from  His  Throne  to  the  [Last]  Judgment  which  we  so  anxiously 
look  for.  The  signs  announcing  the  approaching  Judgment  are 
all  too  numerous.  .  .  .  Hence  put  away  all  fear.  Be  strong  and 
glad  and  untroubled,  for  the  Lord  is  near.  Let  them  undertake 
what  they  please,  the  Henrys  [he  is  thinking  of  Henry  of  Bruns- 
wick, an  opponent],  the  bishops,  and  likewise  the  Turks  and 
Satan  himself.  We  are  children  of  the  kingdom,  and  we  await 
and  honour  Him  as  our  Saviour  Whom  these  Henrys  spit  upon 
and  crucify  anew."1 

In  what  frame  of  mind  he  then  was,  and  what  strange  judg- 
ments he  could  pass,  is  seen  even  more  plainly  from  what  he  adds 
concerning  a  tract  he  had  just  published  against  Duke  Henry  of 
Brunswick. 

This  work,  entitled  "  Wider  Hans  Worst,"  is,  in  style  and 
matter,  an  attack  of  indescribable  violence  on  this  Catholic 
prince  and  Catholics  in  general.  Yet  Luther  writes  of  it  to 
Melanchthon  :  "I  have  re-read  my  book  against  this  devil,  and 
I  cannot  understand  what  has  happened  to  make  me  so  restrained. 
I  attribute  it  to  my  headache  which  prevented  my  mind  from 
being  carried  away  on  the  wings  of  the  storm."  The  "  blood- 
hound and  incendiary  assassin,"  as  he  calls  the  Duke,  would 
otherwise  have  had  to  listen  to  a  very  different  song  for  having 
compelled  Luther  to  "  waste  his  time  on  Henry's  devil's  excre- 
ment." That  the  Duke  had  been  the  originator  of  the  appalling 
number  of  fires  which  occurred  in  the  Electorate  of  Hesse  in 
1540,  both  Luther  and  Melanchthon  were  firmly  convinced. 
Luther's  readiness  to  cherish  the  blackest  suspicions,  his  volcanic 
rage  against  Catholics,  the  pessimism  of  his  reiterated  cry : 
"  Let  everything  fall,  stand  or  sink  into  ruins,  as  it  pleases  ;  let 
things  take  their  own  course,"2  form  a  remarkable  accompaniment 
to  the  thrilling  tones  in  which  he  again  asserts  his  consciousness 
of  the  fulfilment  of  his  Divine  mission. 

We  must  here  revert  to  some  of  Luther's  statements 
concerning  the  triumphant  progress  of  the  Evangel  and  the 
determined  resistance  to  be  offered  to  all  opposing  forces — 
solemn  declarations  which  attain  their  full  meaning  only  in 
the  light  of  his  idea  of  his  own  Divine  mission.  We  give  the 
gist  of  the  passages  already  quoted  in  detail  elsewhere. 
These  passages,  which  reek  of  revolution,  are  altogether 
inspired  by  the  glowing  idea  of  his  heavenly  mission  apart 
from  which  they  are  scarcely  comprehensible. 

"  If  war  is  to  come  of  it,  let  it  come,"  etc.  "  Princely  foes 
are  delivered  up  to  us  as  a  holocaust  in  order  that  they  may 

1  On  April  12,  1541,  "  Brief e,"  ibid.,  p.  341  f. 

2  On  March  2(3,  1542,  to  Jacob  Probst,  "Briefe,"  5,  p.  451.  Similarly 
on  December  3,  1544,  to  Cordatus,  ibid.,  p.  702. 


HIS  DIVINE  MISSION  125 

be  rewarded  according  to  their  works  "  ;   God  will  "  deliver 
His  people  even  from  the  fiery  furnace  of  Babylon."1 

"  Let  things  run  on  merrily  and  be  prepared  for  the 
worst,"  "  whether  it  be  war  or  revolt,  as  God's  anger  may 
decree."2 

"  Let  justice  take  its  course  even  should  the  whole  world 
fall  into  ruins."3 

"  It  is  said,  '  If  the  Pope  fall,  Germany  will  perish.'4  But 
what  has  this  to  do  with  me  ?  " 

"It  is  God's  Word.  Let  what  cannot  stand,  fall,  and 
what  is  not  to  remain,  pass  away."  "  It  is  a  great  thing," 
he  continues,  "  that  for  the  sake  of  the  young  man  [the 
Divine  Redeemer]  this  Jewish  Kingdom  and  the  Divine 
Service  which  had  been  so  gloriously  instituted  and  ordered 
should  fall  to  the  ground."  Not  Christ  alone,  he  says,  had 
spoken  of  His  work  in  the  same  way  that  he  (Luther)  did 
of  his  own,  but  St.  Paul  also,  in  spite  of  his  grief  over  the 
Jews,  had,  like  himself,  constantly  declared  :  "  The  Word 
is  true,  else  everything  must  fall  into  ruins  ;  for  He  Who 
sent  me  and  commanded  me  to  preach,  will  not  lie."5 

His  followers  recalled  his  words,  that  it  were  better  "  all 
churches,  convents  and  foundations  throughout  the  world 
should  be  rooted  out  "  than  that  "  even  one  soul  should  be 
seduced  by  such  [Popish]  error."6  And  again:  "Are  we 
to  forswear  the  truth  ?  "  "  Would  it  be  strange  were  the 
rulers,  the  nobles  and  laity  to  fall  upon  the  Pope,  the 
bishops,  priests  and  monks  and  drive  them  out  of  the  land  ?  ' 
They  had  brought  it  upon  themselves  and  it  was  necessary 
"  to  pray  for  them."7  But  prayer  might  not  suffice. 
If  no  improvement  took  place,  then  "  a  general  destruction 
of  all  the  foundations  and  convents  would  be  the  best 
reformation."8 


1  From  the  letter  to  Justus  Jonas  of  September  20,  1530,  "  Brief  - 
wechsel,"  8,  p.  268. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  3,  p.  279 ;  Erl.  ed.,  262,  p.  8,  in  the  "  War- 
nunge  an  seine  lieben  Deudschen,"  1531. 

3  "  Considerations  on  the  proposed  Conditions  of  Peace,"  of  August, 
1531(?),  "  Brief  wechsel,"  9,  p.  76.     See  above,  p.  45,  n.  5. 

4  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,   33,  p.   606  ;    Erl.  ed.,   48,  p.  342,  in  the 
Exposition  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  1530-1532. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  605  seq.  =  342. 

6  Ibid.,  Weim.  ed.,  10,  1,  1,  p.  253  ;    Erl.  ed.,  72,  p.  222. 

7  Ibid.',  6,  p.  621  =24 2,  p.  46. 

8  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  72,  p.  121. 


126         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

These  outbursts  date  almost  all  from  the  time  of  the  Diet 
of  Augsburg,  or  that  immediately  succeeding  it.  They 
might,  however,  be  compared  with  some  earlier  utterances 
not  one  whit  less  full  of  fanaticism ;  for  instance,  where  he 
says  to  the  Elector,  in  1522  :  "  Not  only  the  spiritual  but 
also  the  secular  power  must  yield  to  the  Evangel,  whether 
willingly  or  unwillingly  "  ;x  or  the  opening  sentences  of  his 
"Bull  of  the  Evening  Feed  of  our^Most  Holy  Lord  the 
Pope  "  (1522)  :  "  After  having  had  to  put  up  with  so  many 
hawkers  of  bulls,  cardinals  .  .  .  and  the  countless  horde 
of  extortioners  and  swindlers  and  knaves  whom  the  Rhine 
would  hardly  suffice  to  drown  .  .  .  !  "2 

A  flood  of  rage  and  passionate  enthusiasm  for  his  mission 
finds  vent  in  these  words  :  "  If  they  hope  ever  to  exterminate 
the  Turks  they  must  begin  with  the  Pope."3  "  The  Pope 
drives  the  whole  world  from  the  Christian  faith  to  his 
devilish  lies,  so  that  the  Pope's  rule  is  ten  times  worse  than 
that  of  the  Turk  for  both  body  and  soul."4 

Previous  to  this,  in  February,  1519,  he  reveals  in  the 
following  words  the  agitation  and  ferment  going  on  within 
him  :  "I  adjure  you,"  he  says  to  his  friend  Spalatin,  "  if 
you  would  think  aright  of  the  Evangel,  not  to  imagine  that 
such  a  cause  can  be  fought  out  without  tumults,  scandal  and 
rebellion.  You  cannot  make  a  pen  out  of  a  sword,  or  peace 
of  war.  The  Word  of  God  is  a  sword,  war,  ruin,  scandal, 
destruction,  poison  and,  as  we  read  in  the  Old  Covenant, 
'  Like  to  a  bear  in  the  road  and  a  lioness  in  the  wood,'  so  it 
withstands  the  sons  of  Ephraim."5 

No  Apostle  or  Prophet  ever  laid  claim  to  a  Divine 
authorisation  for  their  preaching  in  language  so  violent. 
Indeed,  mere  phrases  and  extracts  from  his  writings  scarcely 
suffice  to  give  a  true  picture  of  the  intensity  of  his  pre- 
possession for  his  supposed  Divine  calling  and  of  his  furious 
hatred  of  his  opponents.  It  would,  in  fact,  be  necessary  to 
read  in  their  entirety  certain  of  his  polemical  works.  That 
they  have  not  done  so  is  the  explanation  why  so  many  know 
only  a  polished  Luther  and  have  scarcely  an  inkling  of  the 
fierceness  of  the  struggle  which  centred  round  his  conscious? 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  Ill  ("  Brief wechsel,"  3,  pp.  298,  304). 

2  Ibid.,  Weim.  ed.,  8,  p.  691  ;  Erl.  ed.,  242,  p.  168. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  709  =  189.  4  Ibid. 

5  Thus  it  is  that  he  excuses  the  blustering  character  of  his  writings 
against  those  who  defended  the  Church. 


HIS  DIVINE  MISSION  127 

ness  of  a  Divine  mission,  and  of  the  depth  of  his  animosity 
against  those  who  dared  to  gainsay  him. 

Nor  was  this  consciousness  of  his  without  its  effects  on 
those  around  him.  During  the  long  years  of  his  public  life, 
it  kindled  the  passion  of  thousands  and  contributed  largely 
to  the  Peasant  Revolt  and  the  unhappy  religious  wars  which 
followed  later.  Indirectly  it  was  also  productive  of  disaster 
for  the  Empire  by  forcing  it  to  make  terms  with  the 
turbulent  elements  within,  and  by  preventing  it  from  display- 
ing a  united  front  against  the  Turks  and  other  enemies 
without.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  case  of  very  many  who 
honestly  looked  on  Luther  as  a  real  reformer  of  the  Church, 
it  also  served  to  infuse  into  them  new  enthusiasm  for  what 
they  deemed  the  Christian  cause. 

Its  effect  on  Luther's  character  in  later  life  was  such  as 
to  make  him,  in  his  writings  to  the  German  people,  rave  like  a 
maniac  of  the  different  forms  of  death  best  suited  for  Pope 
and  Cardinals,  viz.  being  hanged  on  the  gallows  with  their 
tongues  torn  out,  being  drowned  in  the  Tyrrhenean  Sea,  or 
"  flayed  alive."1  "  How  my  flesh  creeps  and  how  my  blood 
boils,"  he  cries,  after  one  such  outburst.2 

If  we  remember  the  frenzy  with  which  he  carried  out  his 
religious  enterprise,  the  high  tension  at  which  he  ever 
worked  and  his  inexhaustible  source  of  eloquence,  it  is  easy 
to  fancy  ourselves  face  to  face  with  something  more  than 
human.  The  real  nature  of  the  spirit  which,  throughout 
Luther's  life,  was*  ever  so  frantically  at  work  within  him, 
must  for  ever  remain  a  secret.  One  eye  alone,  that  of  the 
All-seeing,  can  pierce  these  depths.  Anxious  Catholic 
contemporaries  of  Luther's  strongly  suspected  that  they 
had  to  deal  with  one  possessed  by  the  evil  spirit.  This 
opinion  was  openly  voiced,  first  by  Johann  Nathin,  Luther's 
contemporary  at  the  Erfurt  monastery,  by  Emser,  Cochlseus, 
Dungersheim  and  certain  other  early  opponents,  and  then 
by  several  others  whose  testimony  will  be  heard  later  (vol.  iv., 
xxvii.,  1). 

Catholic  contemporaries  also  urged  that  his  claim  to  a 
Divine  mission  was  mere  impudence.  A  simple  monk, 
hitherto  quite  unknown  to  the  world,  so  they  said,  breaks 

1  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  262,  pp.  176,  229,  242,  in  the  work  "Das 
Bapstum  vom  Teuffel  gestifft." 

2  Ibid.,  p.  242. 


128         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

his  vows  and  dares  to  set  himself  in  opposition  to  the 
universal  Church.  A  man,  whose  repute  was  not  of  the 
best,  and  who  not  only  lacked  any  higher  attestation,  but 
actually  exhibited  in  his  doctrine  of  evangelical  freedom,  in 
the  disorderly  lives  of  his  followers  and  in  the  dissensions 
promoted  by  his  fanatical  and  stormy  rhetoric,  those  very 
signs  which  our  Redeemer  had  warned  His  disciples  would 
follow  false  prophets — such  a  man,  they  argued,  could 
surely  not  be  a  reformer,  but  was  rather  a  destroyer,  of 
Christendom  ;  he  perceives  not  that  the  Church,  for  all  her 
present  abuses  and  corruption,  has  nevertheless  all  down 
the  ages  scattered  throughout  the  world  the  Divine  blessings 
committed  to  her  care  by  a  promise  which  shall  never  fail, 
and  that  she  will  soon  rise  again  purer  and  more  beautiful 
than  ever,  for  the  lasting  benefit  of  mankind. 

Luther,  on  the  contrary,  sought  to  base  his  claim  to  a 
Divine  mission  on  the  abuses  rampant  in  Popery,  which,  he 
would  have  it,  was  altogether  under  the  dominion  of  the 
devil  and  quite  beyond  redemption. 

2.   His  Mission  Alleged  against  the  Papists 

Luther,  subsequent  to  his  apostasy,  accustomed  himself 
to  speak  of  Catholicism  in  a  fashion  scarcely  credible.  He 
did  not  shrink  even  from  the  grossest  and  most  impudent 
depreciation  of  the  Church  of  the  Popes.  His  incessant 
indulgence  in  such  abuse  calls  for  some  examination  into  its 
nature  and  the  mental  state  of  which  it  was  a  product. 

The  Pope  and  the  Papacy. 

The  Roman  Curia,  Luther  repeatedly  declared,  did  not 
believe  one  word  of  all  the  truths  of  religion  ;  at  the  faithful 
who  held  fast  to  Revelation  they  scoffed  and  called  them 
good  simpletons  ("  buoni  cristiani");  they  knew  nothing 
either  of  the  Creed  or  of  the  Our  Father,  and  from  all  the 
ecclesiastical  books  put  together  not  as  much  could  be 
learnt  as  from  one  page  of  Martin  Luther's  Catechism. 

"  Mark  this  well,"  he  declared  as  early  as   1520  in  his  work 

'  Von  dem  Bapstum  tzu  Rome,"  of  all  that  is  ordered  of  God 

not  one  jot  or  tittle  is  observed  at  Rome  ;  indeed,  they  mock  at  it 

as  folly  when  anyone  pays  any  attention  to  it.    They  don't  mind 

a  bit  that  the  Gospel  and  the  faith  of  Christ  are  perishing  through- 


ON  THE  POPE  129 

out  the  world,  and  would  not  lift  a  finger  to  prevent  it.1  The 
Popes  are  simply  "  Epicureans,"  so  that,  naturally,  almost  all 
those  who  return  from  Rome  bring  back  home  with  them  an 
"  Epicurean  faith."  "  For  this  at  least  is  certain,  viz.  that  the 
Pope  and  the  Cardinals,  together  with  their  schools  of  knaves, 
believe  in  nothing  at  all ;  in  fact,  they  smile  when  they  hear  faith 
mentioned."2 

"  What  cares  the  Pope  about  prayer  and  God's  Word  ?  He 
has  his  own  god  to  serve,  viz.  the  devil.  But  this  is  a  mere  trifle. 
.  .  .  What  is  far  worse,  and  a  real  masterpiece  of  all  the  devils 
in  hell,  is,  that  he  usurps  the  authority  to  set  up  laws  and  articles 
of  faith.  .  .  .  He  roars,  as  though  chock-full  of  devils,  that 
whosoever  does  not  obey  him  and  his  Romish  Church  cannot  be 
saved.  .  .  .  Papistically,  knavishly,  nay,  in  a  truly  devilish  way, 
does  the  Pope,  like  the  stupid  scoundrel  he  is,  use  the  name  of 
the  holy  Roman  Church,  when  he  really  means  his  school  of 
knaves,  his  Church  of  harlots  and  hermaphrodites,  the  devil's 
own  hotchpotch.  .  .  .  For  such  is  the  language  of  his  Romish 
Church,  and  whoever  has  to  do  with  the  Pope  and  the  Roman 
See  must  first  learn  this  or  else  he  fares  badly.  For  the  devil, 
who  founded  the  Papacy,  speaks  and  works  everything  through 
the  Pope  and  the  Roman  See."3 

His  "  Heer-Predigt  widder  den  Tiircken,"  in  1529,  supplied 
him  with  the  occasion  for  the  following  aside  :  "  The  Pope's 
doctrine  is  mere  spiritual  murder  and  not  one  whit  better  than 
the  teaching  and  blasphemy  of  Mohammed  or  the  Turks.  .  .  . 
We  have  nothing  but  devils  on  either  side  and  everywhere."4 
"  They  even  try  to  force  us  poor  Christians  at  the  point  of  the 
sword  to  worship  the  devil  and  blaspheme  Christ.  Other  tyrants 
have  at  least  this  in  their  favour,  that  they  crucify  the  Lord  of 
Glory  ignorantly,  like  the  Turks,  the  heathen  and  the  Jews  .  .  . 
but  they  [the  Papists],  say  :  We  know  that  Christ's  words  and 
acts  testify  against  us,  but  nevertheless  we  shall  not  endure  His 
Word,  or  yield  to  it."5  "  I  believe  the  Pope  is  the  devil  incarnate 
in  disguise  ;  for  he  is  Antichrist.  For,  as  Christ  is  true  God  and 
man,  so  Antichrist  is  the  incarnation  of  the  devil."  6 

"  The  superstition  of  the  Pope  exceeds  that  of  the  Jews." 
Though  the  Pope  drags  countless  souls  down  to  hell,  yet  we  may 
not  say  to  him  :  "  For  shame  !  Why  act  you  thus  ?  "  "  Had 
not  his  prestige  been  overthrown  by  the  Word  [i.e.  by  my  preach- 
ing] even  the  devil  would  have  vomited  him  forth.  But  this 
deliverance  [from  the  Pope]  we  esteem  a  small  matter  and  have 
become  ungrateful.  God,  however,  will  send  other  forms  of 
darkness  to  avenge  this  ingratitude  ;  we  still  have  this  consola- 
tion, that  the  Last  Day  cannot  be  far  distant  ;   for  the  prophecy 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  287  f.  ;   Erl.  ed.,  27,  p.  90. 

2  Ibid.,  Erl.  ed.,  262,  p.  147. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  163  f. 

4  Ibid.,  Weim.  ed.,  30,  2,  p.  195  f.  ;    Erl.  ed.,  31,  p.  119. 
6  Ibid.,  Erl.  ed.,  252,  p.  283. 

6  Ibid.,  fiO,  p.  180. 

III. — K 


130         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

of  Daniel  has  been   entirely  fulfilled,   where  he   describes   the 
Papacy  as  though  he  had  actually  seen  its  doings."1 

#"  At  Rome,"  so  he  assures  his  readers,  "  they  pull  the  noses  of 
us  German  fools,"  and  then  say,  that  "it  is  of  Divine  institution 
that  none  can  be  made  bishop  without  the  authority  of  Rome. 
I  can  only  wonder  that  Germany  .  .  .  has  a  farthing  left  for 
this  horde  of  unspeakable,  intolerable  Roman  fools,  scoundrels 
and  robbers."2  "  Worse  even  than  this  rapacious  seizing  of  the 
money  of  foreigners  is  the  Pope's  usurped  right  of  deciding 
matters  of  faith.  He  acts  just  as  he  pleases  in  accordance  with 
the  imaginary  interior  inspirations  which  he  believes  he  receives." 
"  He  does  just  the  same  as  Thomas  Miinzer  and  the  Anabaptists, 
for  he  treads  under  foot  the  outward  Word  of  God,  trusts  entirely 
to  higher  illumination  and  gives  vent  to  his  own  fond  inventions 
against  Holy  Scripture  ;  which  is  the  reason  why  we  blame  him. 
We  care  not  for  mere  human  thoughts  ;  what  we  want  is  the  out- 
ward Word."3 

"  In  short,  what  shall  I  say  ?  No  error,  superstition  or  idolatry 
is  too  gross  to  be  admitted  and  accepted  ;  at  Rome  they  even 
honour  the  Pope  as  God.  And  the  heathen  also  had  a  god,  whose 
name  it  was  not  lawful  to  utter."4 


The  Catholics. 

If  we  turn  from  the  Pope-God  or  Pope-devil  to  the  Papists, 
from  the  Roman  Curia  to  the  Catholics,  we  find  them 
scourged  in  similar  language. 

Amidst  a  wealth  of  imagery  quite  bewildering  to  the  mind, 
one  idea  emerges  clearly,  viz.  that  he  has  been  summoned 
by  God  for  the  purpose  of  rebuilding  Christianity  from  the 
very  foundation.  Nothing  but  such  a  mission  could  justify 
him  in  forcing  upon  himself  and  others  the  belief,  that  the 
existing  Church  had  been  utterly  corrupted  by  the  devil 
and  that  everybody  who  dared  to  oppose  him  was  inspired 
by  Satan. 

"  No  one  can  be  a  Papist  unless  he  is  at  the  very  least  a 
murderer,  robber  or  persecutor,"  for  "  he  must  agree  "  that  the 
"Pope  and  his  crew  are  right  in  burning  and  banishing  people,"5 
etc.  The  worst  thing  about  the  Papists  is  the  Mass  ;  he  would 
rather  he  had  "  kept  a  brothel,  or  been  a  robber,  than  have 
sacrificed  and  blasphemed  Christ  for  fifteen  years  by  saying 
Mass."6 

1  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  ed.  Kroker,  p.  404  seq. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  288;   Erl.  ed.,  27,  p.  91. 

3  Ibid.,  Erl.  ed.,  27,  p.  77. 

4  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.',  61,  p.  77. 

»5  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  19,  p.  263. 
6  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  60,  p.  106. 


ON  CATHOLICS  131 

Their  bloodthirstiness  is  beyond  belief.  "  They  would  not 
care  a  scrap  were  no  Prince  or  ruler  left  in  Germany,  and  were 
the  whole  land  bathed  in  blood,  so  long  as  they  were  free  to 
exercise  their  tyranny  and  lead  their  godless  and  shameless  life."1 
So  shameless  is  their  life  that  the  morals  of  the  Lutherans  glitter 
like  gold  in  comparison.  Yea,  "  our  life  even  when  it  reeks  most 
of  sin  is  better  than  all  their  [the  Papists']  sanctity,  though  it 
should  seem  to  smell  as  sweet  as  balsam."2  The  Catholics  had 
destroyed  the  Baptism  instituted  by  Christ,  and  replaced  it  by 
a  baptism  of  works,  hence  their  doctrine  is  as  pernicious  as  that 
of  the  Anabaptists,  nay,  is  exactly  on  a  level  with  that  of  the 
Jews. 3 

The  Catholics  profess  "  unbelief  in  God,"  and  "  put  to  death 
those  guileless  Christians  who  refuse  to  countenance  such 
idolatry  "  ;  they  are  "  not  fit  to  be  compared  with  oxen  or 
asses,"  seeing  that  they  exalt  "  their  self -chosen  works,"  "  far 
above  God's  commandment.  For  in  addition  to  the  idolatry 
and  ungodly  teaching  whereby  they  daily  outrage  and  blaspheme 
God,  they  do  not  perform  any  works  of  charity  towards  their 
neighbour,  nay,  would  rather  leave  anyone  to  perish  in  want 
than  stretch  out  a  hand  to  help  him.  Again,  they  are  as  careful 
not  to  deviate  by  a  hair's  breadth  from  their  man-made  ordinances, 
rules  and  commands  as  were  the  Jews  with  regard  to  the  Sabbath. 
.  .  .  They  make  no  scruple  of  cheating  their  neighbour  of  his 
money  and  goods  in  order  to  fill  their  own  belly.  .  .  .  Such 
perverse  and  crazy  saints,  more  foolish  than  ever  ox  or  ass,  are 
all  those,  Mohammedans,  Turks  or  whatever  else  they  be  called, 
who  refuse  to  listen  to  or  receive  Christ."  4 

It  was  Luther  that  Dr.  Jonas  had  heard,  on  one  occasion  at 
table,  express  the  opinion  concerning  the  Papists  :  "  Young 
fellows,  take  note  of  this  definition  :  A  Papist  is  a  liar  and 
murderer,  nay,  the  devil  himself.  Hence  they  are  not  to  be 
trusted,  for  they  thirst  for  our  blood."5 

Luther  himself  assures  us  that  "  the  blindness  of  the  Papists 
and  the  anger  of  God  against  the  Papacy  was  terrible."  "  Chris- 
tians, redeemed  by  the  Blood  of  Christ,  put  away  this  blood  and 
worshipped  the  crib,  surely  an  awful  fall  !  If  this  had  happened 
amongst  the  heathen  it  would  have  been  regarded  as  monstrous."6 

The  Catholics,  Luther  taught,  never  pray,  in  fact,  they  do  not 
know  how  to  pray  but  only  how  to  blaspheme.  We  find  other 
almost  incredible  allegations  born  of  his  fancy  and  voiced  in  a 
sermon  in  1524,  of  which  we  have  a  transcript.  "  They  taught 
the  Our  Father,  but  warned  us  not  to  use  it  [by  instructing  us 
to  get  others  to  pray  for  us  in  our  stead].  It  is  true  that  for 
many  years  I  shouted  ['  bawled,'  he  says  elsewhere]  in  the 
monastery  [in  choir],  but  never  did  I  pray.     They  mock  the 


1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  19,  p.  260. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  263. 


3  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  192,  p.  155.  4  Ibid.,  202,  p.  233. 

5  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  ed.  Kroker,  p.  83. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  404. 


132         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

Lord  God  with  their  prayers.  Never  did  they  approach  God  Math 
their  hearts  so  as  to  pray  for  anything  in  faith."1 

Had  it  been  possible  for  a  man  to  be  saved  in  Popery  ?  He, 
Luther,  replies  that  this  might  have  happened  because  "  some 
laymen  "  may  have  "held  the  crucifix  in  front  of  the  dying  man 
and  said  :  Look  up  to  Jesus,  Who  died  on  the  cross  for  you. 
By  this  means  many  a  dying  man  had  turned  to  Christ  in  spite  of 
having  previously  believed  in  the  false,  miraculous  signs  [which 
the  devil  performs  in  Popery]  and  acted  as  an  idolator.  Such, 
however,  were  lucky."2  He  admits  incidentally  that  "  many  of 
our  forefathers  "  had  been  saved  in  this  exceptional  way,  though 
only  such  as  "  had  been  led  astray  into  error,  but  had  not  clung 
to  it."3  In  any  case  it  was  a  miracle.  "Those  pious  souls," 
"  many  of  whom  had  by  God's  grace  been  wonderfully  preserved 
in  the  true  faith  in  the  midst  of  Popery,"  had  been  saved,  so  he 
fancies,  in  much  the  same  way  as  "  Abraham  in  Ur  of  the 
Chaldeans,  and  Lot  in  Sodom."4 

Now,  however,  matters  stood  differently ;  thanks  to  his 
mission  light  had  dawned  again,  and  the  unbelief  of  the  Catholics 
was  therefore  all  the  more  reprehensible.  In  the  heat  of  his 
polemic  Luther  goes  so  far  as  to  accuse  the  Papists  who  oppose 
him  of  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  At  any  rate  they  were 
acting  against  their  conscience,  as  he  had  pointed  out  before. 
He  also  hints  that  theirs  is  that  worst  sin,  of  which  Christ  declares 
(Matt.  xii.  31),  that  it  can  be  forgiven  neither  in  this  world  nor 
in  the  next.  The  greater  part  of  a  sermon  on  this  text  which  he 
preached  at  Wittenberg,  in  1528  or  1529,  deals  with  this  criminal 
blindness  on  the  part  of  Catholics,  this  deliberate  turning  away 
from  the  truth  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  which  Matthew  refers. 
Here,  as  elsewhere,  Luther's  presupposition  is  :  I  teach  "  the 
bright  Evangel  with  which  even  they  can  find  no  fault  "  ;  I 
preach  "  nothing  but  what  is  plain  to  all  and  so  clearly  grounded 
on  Scripture  that  they  themselves  are  forced  to  admit  it  "  ; 
"  what  is  so  plainly  proved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  "  that  it  stands 
out  as  a  "  truth  known  to  all."  He  proceeds  :  "  When  I  was  a 
learned  Doctor  I  did  not  believe  there  was  such  a  thing  on  earth 
as  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  I  never  imagined  or  believed 
it  was  possible  to  find  a  heart  that  could  be  so  wicked."  But 
"  now  the  Papal  horde  "  has  descended  to  this,  for  they  "  blas- 
pheme and  lie  against  their  conscience  "  ;  they  "  are  unable  to 
refute  our  Evangel  or  to  advance  anything  against  it,"  "  yet 
they  knowingly  oppose  our  teaching  out  of  waywardness  and 
hatred  of  the  truth,  so  that  no  admonition,  counsel,  prayer  or 
chastisement  is  of  any  avail.'^  "  Thus  openly  to  smite  the  Holy 
Ghost  on  the  mouth,"  nay,  "  to  spit  in  His  Face,"  is  to  emulate 
the  treachery  of  Judas  in  the  depth  of  their  "  obstinate  and 
venomous   hearts "  ;     for   such   it   was    "  forbidden    to    pray," 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  432. 

2  Cp.  Kostlin,  "  Luthers  Theologie,"  22,  p.  269. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  5,  p.  346  f. 

4  Ibid.,  46,  p.  10. 


ON  CATHOLICS  133 

according  to  1  John  v.  16,  because  this  would  be  to  "  insult  the 
spirit  of  grace  and  tread  under  foot  the  Son  of  God."  The 
Papists  richly  deserve  that  the  "  Holy  Ghost  should  forsake 
them,"  and  that  they  should  go  "  wantonly  to  their  destruction 
according  to  their  desire."  In  short,  "  It  is  better  for  people  to 
be  sunk  in  sin,  to  be  prostitutes  and  utter  scamps,  for  at  least 
they  may  yet  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth  ;  but  these 
devil's  saints  who  go  to  Divine  worship  full  of  good  works,  when 
they  hear  the  Holy  Ghost  openly  testifying  against  them,  strike 
Him  on  the  mouth  and  say  :   it  is  all  heresy  and  devilry."1 

The  tone  of  hatred  and  of  blind  prejudice  in  favour  of 
his  cause  which  here  finds  utterance  may  be  explained  to 
some  extent  by  his  experience  during  the  sharp  struggles  of 
conscience  through  which  he  was  then  going,  and  which 
formed  the  worst  crisis  of  his  inner  states  of  terror.  (See 
vol.  v.,  xxxii.,  4.)  Nor  must  the  connection  be  overlooked 
between  his  apparent  confidence  here  and  the  attempt 
which  he  makes  in  one  passage  of  the  sermon  to  justify 
theologically  his  radical  subversion  of  olden  doctrine.  The 
brief  argument  runs  as  follows  :  "  From  St.  Paul  everyone 
can  infer  that  it  cannot  be  achieved  by  works,  otherwise  the 
Blood  of  Christ  is  made  of  no  account."  Hence  the  holiness- 
by-works  of  the  Catholics  was  an  abomination.2 

On  another  occasion  Luther,  speaking  of  the  wilful 
blindness  of  the  Catholics,  declared  that  "  God's  untold 
wrath  must  sooner  or  later  fall  upon  such  Epicurean  pigs 
and  donkeys  "  ;  the  devil  must  be  a  spirit  of  tremendous 
power  to  incite  them  "  deliberately  to  withstand  God." 
They  say  and  admit :  "  '  That  is,  I  know,  the  Word  of  God, 
but  even  though  it  is  the  Word  of  God  I  shall  not  suffer  it, 
listen  to  it,  nor  regard  it,  but  shall  reprove  it  and  call  it 
heretical,  and  whoever  is  determined  to  obey  God  in  this 
matter  .  .  .  him  I  will  put  to  death  or  banish.'  I  could 
never  have  believed  there  was  such  a  sin."3 

As  such  declarations  of  the  wilful  obstinacy  of  the 
Catholics  are  quite  commonly  made  by  him,  we  are  tempted 
to  assume  that  such  was  really  his  opinion;  if  so,  we  are 
here  face  to  face  with  a  remarkable  instance  of  what  his 
self-deception  was  capable. 

1  The  passages  quoted  stand  in  the  following  order  :  pp.  77,  81,  82, 
77,  78,  82.    Cp.  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  28,  p.  18  f. 

2  P.  81. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  29,  p.  8. 


134         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

Even  at  the  Wartburg,  however,  he  was  already  on  the 
road  to  such  an  idea,  for,  while  still  there,  he  had  declared 
that  the  Papists  were  unworthy  to  receive  the  truth  which 
he  preached  :  "  Had  they  been  worthy  of  the  truth,  they 
would  long  ago  have  been  converted  by  my  many  writings." 
"  If  I  teach  them  they  only  revile  me  ;  I  implore  and  they 
merely  mock  at  me  ;  I  scold  them  and  they  grow  angry  ;  I 
pray  for  them  and  they  reject  my  prayer  ;  I  forgive  them 
their  trespass  and  they  will  have  none  of  my  forgiveness  ; 
I  am  ready  to  sacrifice  myself  for  them  and  yet  they  only 
curse  me.    What  more  can  1  do  than  Christ  ?  "* 

It  is  true  that  according  to  him  the  Papists  were  ignorant 
to  the  last  degree,  and  such  ignorance  had  indeed  always 
prevailed  under  Popery.  "  I  myself  have  been  a  learned 
Doctor  of  theology  and  yet  I  never  understood  the  Ten 
Commandments  aright.  Nay,  there  have  been  many 
celebrated  Doctors  who  were  not  sure  whether  there  were 
nine  or  ten  or  eleven  Commandments  ;  much  less  did  they 
know  anything  of  the  Gospel  or  of  Christ."2 

Still,  this  appalling  ignorance  on  the  part  of  the  Papists 
did  not  afford  any  excuse  or  ground  for  charitable  treat- 
ment. Their  malice,  particularly  that  of  the  Popes,  is  too 
great.  "  The  Popes  are  a  pot-boil  of  the  very  worst  men  on 
earth.  They  boast  of  the  name  of  Christ,  St.  Peter  and  the 
Churches  and  yet  are  full  of  the  worst  devils  in  hell,  full, 
absolutely  full,  so  full  that  they  drivel,  spew  and  vomit 
nothing  but  devils."3 

A  passage  in  the  "  Table-Talk  "  collected  by  Mathesius  and 
recently  published,  shows  that  Luther  considered  his 
frenzied  anti-popery  as  the  most  suitable  method  of  combat- 
ing Popish  errors  ;  "  Philip  [Melanchthon]  isn't  as  yet  angry 
enough  with  the  Pope,"  he  said  some  time  in  the  winter  of 
1542-43 ;  "he  is  moderate  by  nature  and  always  acts  with 
moderation,  which  may  possibly  be  of  some  use,  as  he 
himself  hopes.  But  my  storming  {impetus)  knocks  the 
bottom  out  of  the  cask  ;  my  way  is  to  fall  upon  them  with 
clubs  .  .  .  for  the  devil  can  only  be  vanquished  by  con- 
tempt.   Enough  has  been  written  and  said  to  the  weak,  as 

1  Letter  in  1521  to  "  the  poor  little  flock  of  Christ  at  Wittenberg," 
before  August  12,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  8,  p.  213;  Erl.  ed.,  39,  p.  128 
("  Briefwechsel,"  3,  p.  217). 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  14,  p.  158. 

3  Ibid.,  262,  p.  145. 


ON  ERASMUS  135 

for  the  hardened,  nothing  is  of  any  avail  ...  I  rush  in  with 
all  my  might,  but  against  the  devil."1 

His  attitude  towards  scholarly  Catholics  was  very  apparent 
in  the  later  episodes  of  his  controversy  with  Erasmus.2 

After  having  charged  Popes  and  Cardinals  with  lack  of  faith, 
it  can  be  no  matter  for  surprise  that  he  should  have  represented 
Erasmus  as  an  utter  infidel  and  a  preacher  of  Epicureanism. 
The  pretexts  upon  which  Luther  based  this  charge  had  been 
triumphantly  demolished  by  Erasmus,  and  only  Luther's  prejudice 
in  favour  of  his  own  mission  to  save  Christendom  from  destruc- 
tion could  have  led  him  to  describe  Erasmus  as  a  depraved 
fellow,  who  personified  all  the  infidelity  and  corruption  of  the 
Papacy. 

"  This  man  learned  his  infidelity  in  Rome,"  Luther  ventured 
to  say  of  him  ;  hence  his  wish  "  to  have  his  Epicureanism 
praised."  "  He  is  the  worst  foe  of  Christ  that  has  arisen  for  the 
last  thousand  years."3  In  1519,  before  Erasmus  took  the  field 
against  him,  Luther  had  written  to  him,  praising  him,  and,  in 
the  hope  of  securing  his  co-operation,  had  said  :  "  You  are  our 
ornament  and  our  hope.  .  .  .  Who  is  there  into  whose  mind 
Erasmus  has  not  penetrated,  who  does  not  see  in  him  a  teacher, 
or  over  whom  he  has  not  established  his  sway  ?  You  are  dis- 
pleasing to  many,  but  therein  I  discern  the  gifts  of  our  Gracious 
God.  .  .  .  With  these  my  words,  barbarous  as  they  are,  I  would 
fain  pay  homage  to  the  excellence  of  your  mind  to  which  we,  all 
of  us,  are  indebted.  .  .  .  Please  look  on  me  as  a  little  brother 
in  Christ,  who  is  wholly  devoted  to  you  and  loves  you  dearly."4 

On  another  occasion  Luther  abuses  his  opponent  as  follows  : 
"  The  only  foundation  of  all  his  teaching  is  his  desire  to  gain 
the  applause  of  the  world  ;  he  weights  the  scale  with  ignorance 
and  malice."  "  What  is  the  good  of  reproaching  him  with  being 
on  the  same  road  as  Epicurus,  Lucian  and  the  sceptics  ?  By 
doing  so  I  merely  succeeded  in  rousing  the  viper,  and  in  its  fury 
against  me  it  gave  birth  to  the  Viperaspides  [i.e.  the  "  Hyper- 
aspistes  "].  In  Italy  and  at  Rome  he  sucked  in  the  milk  of  the 
Lamise  and  Megserae  and  now  no  medicine  is  of  any  avail." 
Even  in  what  Erasmus  says  concerning  the  Creed,  we  see  the 
"  os  et  organum  Satance."  He  may  be  compared  with  the  enemy 
in  the  Gospel,  who,  while  men  slept,  sowed  cockel  in  the  field. 
We  can  understand  now  how  Sacramentarians,  Donatists,  Arians, 
Anabaptists,  Epicureans  and  so  forth  have  again  made  their 
appearance.  He  sowed  his  seed  and  then  disappeared.  And  yet 
he  stands  in  high  honour  with  Pope  and  Prince.     "  Who  would 

1  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  ed.  Kroker,  p.  307. 

2  Cp.  vol.  iv.,  xxiii.,  1,  where  Luther's  attitude  to  Erasmus  subse- 
quent to  the  publication  of  "  De  servo  arbitrio  "  (1525)  is  treated  of 
more  fully. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  61,  p.  104  ff.  Cp.  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden," 
p.  301. 

4  On  March  28,  1519,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  489  f. 


136         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

have  believed  that  the  hatred  of  Luther  was  so  strong  ?  A  poor 
man  is  made  great  simply  through  Luther."1 

This  letter  Erasmus  described  in  the  title  of  his  printed  reply 
as  "  Epistola  non  sobria  Martini  Lutheri."  Others,  he  says, 
might  well  explain  it  as  a  mental  aberration,  or  as  due  to  the 
influence  of  some  evil  demon.2 

Luther,  quite  undismayed,  continued  to  deny  that  Erasmus 
was  in  any  sense  a  believer  :  "  He  regards  the  Christian  religion 
and  doctrine  as  a  comedy  or  tragedy  "  ;  he  is  "  a  perfect  counter- 
feit and  image  of  Epicurus  "  ;  to  this  "  incarnate  scoundrel,  God 
— the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost — is  merely  ludicrous." 
"  Whereas  I  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  read  most  of  the  other 
screeds  published  against  me,  but  merely  put  them  to  the  basest 
use  that  paper  can  be  put — which  indeed  was  all  they  were 
worth — I  read  through  the  whole  of  the  '  Diatribe  '  of  Erasmus, 
though  I  was  often  tempted  to  throw  it  aside."  He,  like  Demo- 
critus,  the  cynical  heathen  philosopher,  looks  on  our  whole 
theology  as  nothing  better  than  a  fairy  tale.3 

We  may  well  be  permitted  to  regard  such  statements 
made  by  Luther  in  his  later  years  concerning  the  Catholics 
more  as  the  result  of  a  delusion  than  as  deliberate  falsehoods. 
It  may  be  that  Luther  gradually  persuaded  himself  that 
such  was  really  the  case.  If  this  be  so,  we  must,  however, 
admit  with  Dollinger  "  the  unparalleled  perversion  and 
darkening  of  Luther's  judgment  "  ;  this,  adds  Dollinger, 
would  explain  "  much  in  his  statements  which  must  other- 
wise appear  enigmatical."4  Considerations  such  as  those 
we  have  seen  him  (p.  121  ff.)  allege  concerning  the  truth  of 
his  cause  being  proved  by  its  success,  could  scarcely  have 
impressed  any  save  an  unsettled  mind  such  as  his.  He 
seems  to  have  accustomed  himself  to  explaining  the  complex 
and  highly  questionable  movement  at  the  head  of  which  he 
stood  in  a  light  other  than  the  true  one,  so  much  so  that  he 
could  declare  :  "  God  knows  all  this  is  not  my  doing,  a  fact 
of  which  the  whole  world  should  have  been  aware  long 
ago."6     Brimful  of  the  enthusiasm  he  had  imbibed  at  the 

1  Luther  to  Amsdorf  about  March  11,  1534,  "  Briefwechsel,"  10, 
p.  8  ff.     The  Tetter  was  published  by  Luther. 

2  "  Quodsi  Martinus  Mud  sibi  proposuit,  persuadere  mundo  Erasmum 
hoc  agere  callidis  artibus  et  insidiosis  cuniculis,  ut  omnes  Christianos 
adducat  in  odium  verce  religionis,  frustra  nititur.  Citius  enim  persuaserit 
omnibus  se  aut  odio  lymphatum  esse  aut  mentis  morbo  teneri,  aut  a 
sinistro  quopiam  agitari  genio."  "  Purgatio  adversus  Epistolam  non 
sjbriam  Martini  Lutheri.'1''     "  Opp.,"  Lugd.  Batav.,  t.  10,  col.  1557. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  61,  p.  104  ff. 

4  "Die  Reformation,"  3,  p.  264. 

5  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  18,  p.  641  ;    "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  7,  p.  162. 


CHRIST'S  CAUSE  137 

Wartburg  lie  wrote,  from  Wittenberg,  on  June  27,  1522,  in 
a  similar  tone  to  Staupitz,  who  was  then  Benedictine  Abbot 
at  Salzburg  :  "  God  has  undertaken  it  [the  destruction  of 
the  abomination  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Pope]  without  our 
help  and  without  human  aid,  merely  by  the  Word.  Its  end 
has  come  before  the  Lord.  The  matter  is  beyond  our  reason 
or  understanding,  hence  it  is  useless  to  expect  all  to  grasp  it. 
For  the  sake  of  God's  power  it  is  meet  and  just  that  people's 
minds  be  deeply  stirred  and  that  there  should  be  great  scandals 
and  great  signs.  Dear  father,  do  not  let  this  disturb  you  ; 
I  am  hopeful.  You  see  God's  plan  in  these  matters  and  His 
Mighty  Hand.  Remember  how  my  cause  from  the  outset 
seemed  to  the  world  doubtful  and  intolerable,  and  how, 
notwithstanding,  from  day  to  day  it  has  gained  the  upper 
hand  more  and  more.  It  will  also  gain  the  upper  hand  in 
what  you  now  anticipate  with  misplaced  apprehension  ; 
just  you  wait  and  see.  Satan  feels  the  smart  of  the  wound 
inflicted  on  him,  that  is  why  he  rages  so  furiously  and  throws 
everything  into  confusion.  But  Christ  Who  began  the  work 
will  tread  him  under  foot  in  defiance  of  all  the  gates  of 
hell."1 

From  the  very  outset  of  his  career  Luther  had  been 
paving  the  way  for  this  delusion  as  to  the  true  character  of 
his  Catholic  opponents,  his  own  higher  mission  and  God's 
overthrow  of  all  gainsay ers. 

In  1518  he  declared,  as  a  sort  of  prelude  to  the  idea  of  his 
Divine  mission,  that  the  Catholic  Doctors  who  opposed  him 
were  sunk  in  "  chaotic  darkness,"  and  that  he  preached 
"  the  one  true  light,  Jesus  Christ."2  Even  in  1517,  in 
publishing  his  Resolutions,  he  had  said  of  the  setting  up  of 
his  Indulgence  Theses,  that  the  Lord  Himself  had  com- 
pelled him  to  advance  all  this.  "  Let  Christ  see  to  it  whether 
it  be  His  cause  or  mine."3 

His  pupils  and  Wittenberg  adherents  treasured  up  such 
assurances  of  his  extraordinary  mission  in  order  to  excite 
their  own  enthusiasm.  Even  Albert  Durer,  who  was  further 
removed  from  the  sphere  of  his  influence,  spoke  of  him  in 

1  "  Brief wechsel,"  3,  p.  406  f. 

2  To  Spalatin,  May  18,  1518,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  1,  p.  193. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  527  :  "  Christus  viderit,  suane  sint  an 
mea" 


138         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

the  third  decade  of  the  century  as  "  a  man  enlightened  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  one  who  has  the  Spirit  of  God."1  Long 
after  his  death  the  chord  which  he  had  struck  continued  to 
vibrate  among  those  who  were  devoted  to  him.  On  his 
tomb  at  Wittenberg  might  be  read  :  "  Taught  by  the 
Divine  inspiration  and  called  by  God's  Word,  he  disseminated 
throughout  the  world  the  new  light  of  the  Evangel."  Old, 
orthodox  Lutheranism  honoured  him  as  God's  own  messen- 
ger ;  the  Protestant  Pietists,  at  the  turn  of  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries,  attributed  to  Luther,  to  quote  the 
words  of  Gottfried  Arnold,  a  truly  "  apostolic  call,"  received 
by  means  of  a  "  direct  inspiration,  impulse  or  Divine  appre- 
hension "  ;  this  Divine  mission,  Arnold  says,  was  "  gener- 
ally "  admitted,  although  he  himself,  as  a  staunch  Pietist, 
was  willing  to  allow  to  Luther  "  the  power  and  illumination 
of  the  Spirit  "  only  during  the  period  previous  to  the  dispute 
with  Carlstadt,  who  was  equally  enlightened  from  above. 
"  For  a  while,"  says  Arnold,  i.e.  for  about  seven  years, 
Luther  was  "  in  very  truth  mightily  guided  by  God  and 
employed  as  His  instrument."2 

Other  Lutheran  theologians,  Gerhard  and  Calovius,  for 
instance,  refused  to  see  in  Luther's  case  anything  more  than 
an  indirect  call ;  about  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century 
the  editor  of  Luther's  Works,  Consistorialrat  Prof.  J.  G. 
Walch,  of  Jena,  asserted  openly  of  Luther's  mission  that 
he  "  was  not  called  directly  by  God  as  had  been  the  case 
with  the  Prophets  and  Apostles  "  ;  his  call  had  only  in  so 
far  been  beyond  the  ordinary  in  that  "  God,  after  decreeing 
in  His  Divine  plans  the  Reformation,  had  chosen  Luther 
as  His  tool  "  ;  hence  Luther's  providential  mission  was 
only  to  be  inferred  from  the  "  divinity  of  the  Reformation," 
which,  however,  was  apparent  to  all  who  "  did  not  wantonly 
and  maliciously  shut  their  eyes  to  facts."  Extraordinary 
gifts  had  not  indeed  been  bestowed  upon  him  by  God, 
though  he  had  all  the  "  gifts  pertaining  to  his  office  "  in  rich 
measure,  and  likewise  the  "  sanctifying  gifts "  and  the 
"  spiritual  graces  "  ;  the  latter  Walch  then  proceeds  to 
dissect  with  painstaking  exactitude.3 

1  Vol.  ii.,  p.  41  f. 

2  "  Unparteiische  Kirchen-  und  Ketzerhistorie,"  2,  Frankfurt, 
1699,  p.  42  (with  the  epitaph  quoted  above),  and  p.  75. 

3  "  Ausfuhrliche  Nachricht  von  M.  Luthero,"  in  vol.  xxiv.  of  his 
edition  of  Luther,  pp.  379,  376. 


THE  MODERN  VIEW  139 

Such  a  view  marks  the  transition  to  the  modern  con- 
ception of  Luther  so  widely  prevalent  among  Protestants 
to-day,  which,  while  extolling  him  as  the  powerful  instru- 
ment of  the  Reformation,  naturalises  him,  so  to  speak,  and 
takes  him  down  from  the  pedestal  of  the  God-illumined 
teacher  and  prophet,  who  proclaims  a  Divine  interpretation 
of  Scripture  binding  upon  all.1 

1  How  little  this  view  of  Luther  fits  in  with  his  own  estimate  of 
himself  may  be  seen  from  the  following  statements  which  occur  in  his 
Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  (1531,  "Vjpl.  i.,  in  Irmischer's 
ed.)  :  Heretics,  owing  to  a  delusion  of  Satan,  consider  their  doctrines 
as  absolutely  certain  ;  founders  of  sects,  more  particularly,  will  never 
allow  themselves  to  be  converted  by  our  proofs  from  Scripture,  as  we 
see  in  the  case  of  the  fanatics  ;  so  well  does  the  devil  know  how  to 
assume  the  shape  of  Christ.  "  I,  however,  am  persuaded  by  the  Spirit 
of  Christ,  that  my  doctrine  of  Christian  righteousness  is  true  and  certain 
(sum  certU8  et  persuasus  per  spiritum  Christi,  p.  288)  ;  therefore  I 
cannot  listen  to  anything  to  the  contrary."  Hence  "  the  Pope,  the 
Cardinals,  bishops,  and  monks  and  the  whole  synagogue  of  Satan, 
and  in  particular  the  founders  of  the  Religious  Orders  (some  of  whom, 
nevertheless,  God  was  able  to  save  by  a  miracle),  confuse  men's  con- 
sciences and  are  worse  than  false  apostles  "  (p.  83).  Like  St.  Paul 
he  pronounces  anathema  on  all  angels  and  men  who  rise  up  to  destroy 
the  Gospel  preached  by  Paul ;  of  such  subverters  the  world  is  now, 
alas,  full  (p.  89).  By  the  fanatics,  he  says  (p.  90),  he  too  was  accounted 
such  a  one,  though  he  only  paid  homage  to  pure  Scripture  as  to  his 
"  Queen  "  (p.  93).  "  Like  Paul  I  declare  with  the  utmost  certainty 
every  doctrine  to  be  anathema  which  differs  from  my  own.  .  .  .  Its 
founder  is  the  messenger  of  Satan,  and  is  anathema."  "  Sic  nos  cum 
Paulo  securissime  et  certissime  pronuntiamus,  omnem  doctrinam  esse 
maledictam,  quce  cum  nostra  dissonat.  .  .  .  Qui  igitur  aliud  evangelium 
vel  contrarium  nostro  docet,  missum  a  diabolo  et  anathema  esse  con- 
fidenter  dicimus  "  (p.  94). 

Just  as  in  Paul's  day  the  Galatians  had  become  inconstant,  so 
"  some,  who  at  the  outset  had  accepted  the  Word  with  joy  and  among 
whom  were  many  excellent  men,  had  now  suddenly  fallen  away," 
because  the  Lord  had  withdrawn  His  Grace  (p.  99).  They  bring 
forward  as  objections  against  us  the  belief  of  the  Church  and  of 
antiquity.  But  "  should  Peter  and  Paul  themselves,  or  an  angel  from 
heaven,  teach  differently,  yet  I  know  for  a  certainty  that  my  teaching 
is  not  human  but  Divine,  i.e.  that  I  ascribe  all  to  God  and  nothing  to 
man  "  (p.  102).  "  It  is  true  that  this  very  argument  prejudices  our 
cause  to-day  more  than  anything  else.  If  we  are  to  believe  only  him 
who  teaches  the  pure  Word  of  God,  not  the  Pope,  or  the  Fathers,  or 
Luther,  whom  then  are  we  to  believe  ?  Who  is  to  reassure  man's 
conscience  as  to  where  the  true  Word  of  God  is  preached,  whether 
amongst  us  or  amongst  our  opponents  ?  For  the  latter  also  boast  of 
having  and  teaching  the  true  Word  of  God.  We  do  not  believe  the 
Papists  because  they  do  not  and  cannot  teach  the  Word  of  God. 
They,  on  the  other  hand,  declare  us  to  be  the  greatest  heretics.  What 
then  is  to  be  done  ?  Is  every  fanatic  to  be  permitted  to  teach  whatever 
comes  into  his  head,  while  the  world  refuses  to  hear  us  or  to  endure  our 
teaching  ?  "  In  spite  of  our  assurances  of  the  certainty  of  ovir  teaching, 
he  complains,  they  call  our  boasting  devilish  ;  if  we  yield,  then  they, 
the  Papists  and  the  fanatics,    grow    proud   and  become  still  more 


140         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

Apocalyptico  -  Mystic  Vesture. 

Against  Catholics  Luther  also  used  certain  pseudo- 
mystic  elements  drawn  from  his  consciousness  of  a  higher 
mission  and  based  principally  on  Holy  Scripture. 

In  this  respect  his  one-sided  study  of  the  Bible  explains 
much,  and  should  avail  to  mitigate  our  judgment  on  him. 
Stories  and  scenes  from  the  Old  Testament,  incidents  from 
the  heroic  times  of  the  prophets,  the  lives  of  the  patriarchs, 
to  which  he  had  devoted  special  Commentaries,  so  engrossed 
his  mind,  that,  unwittingly,  he  came  to  clothe  all  in  the  garb 
of  the  prominent  figures  of  Bible  history.  He  was  fond  of 
imagining  himself  as  one  of  those  privileged  heroes  living 
in  the  same  world  of  miracles  as  of  yore. 

settled  in  their  error.  "  Therefore  let  each  one  see  that  he  is  convinced 
of  the  truth  of  his  own  calling  and  doctrine,  so  that,  like  Paul,  he  may 
venture  to  say  with  absolute  certainty  and  conviction  :  '  If  an  angel 
from  heaven,'  etc."  The  revelation  of  the  Gospel  is  made  to  each  one 
individually,  and  is  "  effected  by  God  Himself,  yet  the  outward  Word 
must  precede  and  then  the  inward  Spirit  will  follow.  .  .  .  The  Holy 
Ghost  is  given  for  the  revealing  of  the  Word,  but  the  outward  Word 
must  first  have  been  heard  "  (p.  114). 

In  opposition  to  the  fanatics  Luther  is  fond  of  tracing  back  his  own 
great  illumination,  which  had  brought  salvation  to  the  world,  to  the 
preliminary  action  of  the  outward  Word  of  Holy  Scripture  on  his  mind. 
Towards  the  end  of  his  life  he  wrote  (on  May  7,  1545)  to  Amsdorf  : 
"  I  glory  in  the  certainty  that  the  Son  of  God  is  seated  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father  and  most  sweetly  speaks  to  us  here  below  by  His 
Spirit  even  as  He  spoke  to  the  Apostles,  and  that  therefore  we  are  His 
disciples,  and  hear  the  Word  from  His  lips.  .  .  .  We  hear  the  Divine 
Majesty  speaking  through  the  word  of  the  Gospel.  The  angels  and  the 
whole  creation  of  God  congratulate  us  on  this,  while  the  Pope,  that 
monster  of  the  devil,  wobbles  in  sadness  and  fear  and  all  the  gates  of 
hell  tremble  with  him  "  ("Briefe,"  5,  p.  737).  At  an  earlier  date,  in 
1522,  he  had  declared  :  "  This  is  what  you  must  say  :  Whether  Luther 
is  a  saint  or  a  scamp  does  not  matter  to  me  ;  his  doctrine  is  not  his, 
but  Christ's  .  .  .  leave  the  man  out  of  the  question,  but  acknowledge 
the  doctrine  "  ("  Von  beider  Gestallt  des  Sacramentes,"  "  Werke," 
Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  40).  "  I  don't  care  in  the  very  least  whether  a 
thousand  Augus  tines  or  a  thousand  Harry -Churches  are  against  me, 
but  I  am  convinced  that  the  true  Church  clings  to  the  Word  of  God  as 
I  do  "  ("  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  256 ;  Erl.  ed.,  28,  p.  379.  "  Against 
King  Henry  VIII."  "I  was  he  to  whom  God  first  revealed  it" 
("  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  3,  p.  8). 

J.  A.  Mohler  rightly  remarks  :  "  Seeing  that  it  was  Luther's  design 
to  break  with  the  existing,  visible  Church,  it  was  essential  that  he 
should  give  the  first  place  to  the  invisible  Church  and  look  on  himself  as 
directly  sent  by  God."  He  points  out  that  Calvin  also  appealed  to 
a  direct  mission,  and  quotes  from  his  answer  to  Sadolet's  letter  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Geneva :  "  ministerium  meum,  quod  Dei  vocatione 
fundatum  ac  sanctum  fuisse  non  dubito  "  ;  "  ministerium  meum,  quod 
quidem  a  Christo  esse  novi.'n  "  Opusc,"  pp.  106,  107  (*'  Symbolik," 
49,  n    1). 


THE  PAPAL   ANTICHRIST  141 

If  a  she-ass  could  speak  to  Balaam  then  how  much  more  can 
he,  Luther,  proclaim  the  truth  by  the  power  from  on  high,  even 
though  the  whole  world  should  be  astonished  at  the  solitary 
figure  who  dares  to  stand  up  against  it.  He  calls  to  mind,  that 
the  prophet  Elias  was  almost  alone  in  refusing  to  bow  the  knee 
to  Baal.  Discouraged  by  the  opposition  he  met  with  from  the 
Catholic  party  he  was  ready  to  liken  himself  to  Jeremias  the 
prophet,  and  like  him  to  say  :  "  We  would  have  cured  Babylon, 
but  she  is  not  healed,  let  us  forsake  her."1 

In  the  New  Testament  Christ  Himself  and  the  Apostles  were 
Luther's  favourite  types,  because,  like  himself,  they  were  against 
a  whole  world  whose  views  were  different.  The  fact  that  they 
were  alone  did  not,  he  says,  diminish  their  reputation,  and  their 
success  proved  their  mission.  Like  Paul  and  Athanasius  and 
Augustine  it  is  his  duty  to  withstand  the  stream  of  false  opinions  : 
"  My  rock,  that  on  which  I  build,  stands  firm  and  will  not  totter 
or  fall  in  spite  of  all  the  gates  of  hell  ;  of  this  I  am  certain.  .  .  . 
Who  knows  what  God  wills  to  work  by  our  means  ?  "2 

When,  at  different  periods  of  his  public  career,  and  in 
preparing  his  various  works  for  the  press,  he  had  occasion 
to  ruminate  on  the  biblical  questions  connected  with  Anti- 
christ, he  was  wont  also  to  consider  the  prophecies  of  Daniel 
on  the  end  of  the  world.  By  dint  of  a  diligent  comparison 
of  all  the  passages  on  the  abominations  of  the  latter  days  he 
came  to  find  therein  the  corruption  of  the  Papacy  fully 
described,  even  down  to  the  smallest  details,  with  an 
account  of  its  overthrow,  and,  consequently,  also  of  his  own 
mission.  In  the  same  way  that  he  saw  the  impending  fall 
of  the  Turkish  Empire  predicted,  so  also  he  recognised  that 
the  German  Empire  must  shortly  perish,  since,  as  he  had 

1  To  Nicholas  Amsdorf,  November  7,  1543,  "  Brief e,"  ed.  De  Wette, 
5,  p.  600,  Jer.  li.  9. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  477  ;  Erl.  ed.,  242,  p.  16  (in  1520). 
Here  again  we  find  the  "  she-ass  that  rebuked  the  prophet."  This 
enables  us  to  understand  his  asseveration  in  the  same  year  ("  Werke," 
Weim.  ed.,  7,  p.  277  ;  Erl.  ed.,  27,  p.  213),  that  he  was  ready  to  die  for 
his  doctrine.  Dollinger  says  of  such  assurances  as  the  above  :  "  Such 
a  tone  of  unshaken  firmness  was  in  Luther's  case  largely  due  to  the 
excitement  caused  by  his  polemics  .  .  .  and  to  the  sense  of  his  natural 
superiority"  ("Luther,  eine  Skizze,"  p.  53;  also  "  Kirchenlexikon," 
82,  col.  340).  He  points  out  that  Luther  had  formed  his  peculiar 
views  "  during  a  period  of  painful  confusion  of  mind  and  trouble  of 
conscience,"  and  that  at  times  when  Holy  Scripture  did  not  entirely 
satisfy  him  he  would  even  seemingly  set  Christ  against  Scripture,  as 
in  the  following  passage  :  "You  Papist,  you  insist  much  on  Scripture, 
but  it  is  no  more  than  a  servant  of  Christ,  and  to  it  I  will  not  listen. 
But  I  am  strong  in  Christ,  Who  is  the  true  Lord  and  Emperor  over 
Scripture.  I  care  nothing  for  any  texts  of  Scripture,  even  though  you 
should  bring  forward  many  more  against  me  ;  for  I  have  the  Lord  and 
Master  of  Scripture  on  my  side,"  etc.  (ibid.,  p.  59  =  col.  344). 


142         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

learnt  from  Daniel,  it  was  to  receive  no  other  constitution. 
As  for  the  Papacy,  at  least  according  to  one  of  the  most 
forcible  of  his  pronouncements,  within  two  years  "  it  would 
vanish  like  smoke,  together  with  all  its  swarm  of  parasites." 

In  Daniel  viii.-we  read  that  a  king  will  come,  "  of  a  shame- 
less face,  and  understanding  dark  sentences."  He  will  lay 
all  things  waste  and  destroy  the  mighty  and  the  people  of  the 
saints  according  to  his  will.  "  Craft  shall  be  successful  in 
his  hands  and  his  heart  shall  be  puffed  up.  He  shall  rise  up 
against  the  prince  of  princes,  and  shall  be  broken  without 
a  hand."  His  coming  will  be  "  after  many  days."1  The 
king  thus  prophesied  is  generally  admitted  to  have  been 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  while  the  words  "  after  many  days  " 
do  not  refer  to  the  Last  Day  or  to  the  End  of  the  World, 
but  to  the  latter  end  of  the  Jewish  people.  Luther,  however, 
took  these  words  and  the  whole  prophecy  in  an  erroneous, 
apocalyptic  sense.  He  brought  the  description  of  the  king 
into  connection  with  the  passages  on  Antichrist,  and  the 
great  apostasy,  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians, 
the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy  and  the  Second  Epistle  of 
Peter,  etc.2  There  seemed  to  him  not  the  slightest  doubt 
that  the  Papacy,  with  its  pernicious  arrogance  and  revolt 
against  God,  was  here  described  in  minutest  detail. 

This  idea  he  finally  elaborated  while  writing  his  violent 
work  "  On  the  Babylonish  Captivity."  He  therein  promised 
to  tell  the  Papists  things  such  as  they  had  never  heard  before. 
This  promise  he  fulfilled  soon  after  in  the  detailed  reply  to 
Ambrosius  Catharinus,  which  he  hastily  wrote  in  the  month 
of  March,  1521.  In  this  Latin  work  he  proved  in  detail  to 
the  satisfaction  of  learned  readers,  whether  in  Germany  or 
abroad,  that  the  Papacy  was  plainly  depicted  in  the  Bible 
as  Antichrist,  and  likewise  its  approaching  great  fall.3 

"  I  think  that,  through  my  exposition  of  the  Prophet  Daniel, 
I  have  carried  out  excellently  what  I  promised  the  Papists  to 
do."    Thus  to  his  friend  Link,  on  the  completion  of  the  work.4 

Daniel's    Antichrist,    according    to    Luther's    interpretation, 

1  Daniel  viii.  17  ff. 

2  2  Thess.  ii.  3  ff.  ;   2  Tim.  iv.  3  ff.  ;   2  Peter  ii.  1  ff. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  7,  p.  777  f.  ;  "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  5,  p.  392  seq., 
at  the  end  of  the  "  Responsio  ad  librum  Ambrosii  Catharini." 

4  "  Id  quod  hac  Danielis  explanatione  arbitror  me  prcestitisse  egregie." 
Ibid.  Hence  what  he  wrote  was  intended  in  all  seriousness  and  in  no 
sense  as  a  joke. 


THE  PAPAL  ANTICHRIST  143 

assumes  various  shapes.  These,  Luther  assures  us,  are  the 
different  forms  and  masks  of  Romish  superstition  and  Romish 
hypocrisy.  Amongst  these  he  reckons,  as  the  last,  the  Universities, 
because  they  had  made  use  of  the  Divine  Word  in  order  to  deceive 
the  world  ;  here  he  introduces  the  prophecy  in  Apocalypse  ix., 
where  a  star  falls  from  heaven,  the  fountains  of  the  deep  are 
opened,  locusts  with  the  strength  of  scorpions  rise  up  out  of  a 
thick  smoke,  and  a  King  reigns  over  them  whose  name  is  Apollyon, 
or  destroyer.  The  star  Luther  takes  to  be  Thomas  Aquinas,  the 
smoke  is  the  empty  words  and  opinions  of  Aristotle  and  the 
philosophers,  the  destructive  locusts  are  the  Universities,  and 
Apollyon  is  their  master,  viz.  Aristotle.  As  for  Antichrist  himself, 
i.e.  the  Papacy,  Jesus  will  destroy  him  with  the  breath  of  His 
mouth,  according  to  the  word  of  St.  Paul,  which  agrees  with 
the  "  destruction  without  hands  "  prophesied  by  Daniel.  "  Thus 
the  Pope  and  his  kingdom  are  not  to  be  destroyed  by  laymen, 
although  they  greatly  dread  this  [at  Rome]  ;  they  are  not 
worthy  of  so  mild  a  chastisement,  but  are  being  reserved  for 
the  Second  Coming  of  Christ  because  they  have  been,  and  still 
remain,  His  most  furious  enemies.  Such  is  the  end  of  Antichrist, 
who  exalts  himself  above  all  things  and  does  not  fight  with 
hands,  but  by  the  breath  and  spirit  of  Satan.  Breath  shall 
destroy  breath,  truth  unmask  deceit,  for  the  unmasking  of  a  lie 
means  bringing  it  to  nought."1 

Apocalyptic  fancies  such  as  the  above  were  to  dog  Luther's 
footsteps  for  the  rest  of  his  life.  Both  in  his  writings  and 
in  his  "  Table-Talk  "  he  was  never  backward  in  putting  forth 
his  views  on  this  abstruse  subject. 

Of  the  ideas  concerning  the  Papal  Antichrist  which,  since 
Hus's  time  were  current  among  the  classes  hostile  to  Rome,2 
Luther  selected  and  absorbed  whatever  was  worst.  Hus's 
work  on  the  Church  he  read  in  February,  1520.  The  birth 
and  growth  of  the  theory  in  his  mind  even  previous  to  this 
can,  however,  be  traced  step  by  step,  and  the  process  affords 
us  a  valuable  insight  into  his  mentality  by  revealing  so  well 
its  pseudo-mystical  element. 

We  may  distinguish  between  the  earliest  private  and  the 
earliest  public  appearance  of  Luther's  idea  of  the  Papal 
Antichrist.  Its  first  unmistakable  private  trace  is  to  be 
met  with  in  a  letter  of  December  11,  1518,  to  his  brother- 
monk  and  sympathiser  Wenceslaus  Link.     Luther  was  at 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  7,  p.  777  ;  "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  5,  p,  392. 
Cp.  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  399,  and  our  vol.  ii.,  p.  56  f. 

2  Cp.  H.  Preuss,  "  Die  Vorstellungen  vom  Antichrist  im  spateren 
Mittelalter,  bei  Luther  und  in  der  konfessionellen  Polemik,"  Leipzig, 
1906.     See  our  vol.  ii.,  p.  56,  n,  1. 


144         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

that  time  labouring  under  the  emotion  incident  on  his 
interrogation  at  Augsburg,  of  which  he  had  just  published 
the  "  Acta."  Sending  a  copy  to  his  friend  he  declares,  that 
his  pen  is  already  at  work  at  much  greater  things,  that  he 
knew  not  whence  the  ideas  that  filled  his  mind  came,  but 
that  he  would  send  Link  whatever  writings  he  published, 
that  he  might  see  "  whether  I  am  right  in  my  surmise  that 
the  real  Antichrist,  according  to  Paul  [2  Thess.  ii.,  3  ff.],  rules 
at  the  Roman  Curia."1  The  first  public  expression  of  this 
idea  is,  however,  to  be  found  in  the  pronouncement  he  made 
subsequent  to  the  Leipzig  Disputation  in  the  summer  of 
1519,  viz.  that  if  the  Pope  arrogated  to  himself  alone  the 
power  of  interpreting  Scripture,  then  he  was  exalting 
himself  above  God's  Word  and  was  worse  than  Antichrist.2 

Not  long  after  Luther  showed  how  deeply  he  had  drunk 
in  the  ideas  of  Hus  ;  in  February,  1520,  he  confessed  to 
being  a  Husite,  since  both  he  and  Staupitz  too  had  hitherto 
taught  precisely  Hus's  doctrine,  though  without  having 
recognised  him  as  their  leader  ;  the  plain,  evangelical  truth 
had  been  burnt  a  hundred  years  before  in  the  person  of 
Hus.  "  I  am  so  astonished  I  know  not  what  to  think  when 
I  contemplate  these  terrible  judgments  of  God  upon  men."  3 
On  March  19  he  sent  to  Spalatin  a  copy  of  Hus's  writing, 
which  had  just  been  printed  for  the  first  time,  praising  the 
author  asa"  marvel  of  intellect  and  learning."4 

In  his  conception  of  Antichrist  Luther  differed  from 
antiquity  in  that  he  applied  the  term  not  so  much  to  a 
person  as  to  a  system,  or  a  condition  of  things  :  the  ecclesi- 
astical government  of  Rome,  with  its  "pretensions  "  and  its 
"corruption,"  appears  to  him  in  his  apocalyptic  dreams  as 
the  real  Antichrist.  That  he  finally  came  to  see  in  the  person 
of  the  Pope  more  and  more  an  embodiment  of  Antichrist 
was,  however,  only  to  be  expected  ;  when  one  wearer  of 
the  Papal  tiara  died,  the  mask  of  Antichrist  passed  to  his 
successor,  a  matter  of  no  difficulty  since,  as  the  end  of  the 
world  was  nigh,  the  number  of  the  Popes  was  in  any  case 
complete. 

As  early  as  February  24,  1520,  having  previously  found 

1  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  316. 

2  "  Epitome  "  against  Prierias,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  328  ; 
"  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  4,  p.  79. 

3  To  Spalatin,  February,  1520,  "  Briefwechsel,"  2,  p.  345. 

4  "  Briefwechsel,"  2,  p.  262  ;   cp.  ibid.,  n.  3. 


THE  PAPAL  ANTICHRIST  145 

new  fuel  for  his  ire  in  the  perusal  of  Hutten's  edition  of 
Lorenzo  Valla's  dissertation  against  the  Donation  of 
Constantine,  he  wrote  to  Spalatin  : 1  "  Nothing  is  too 
utterly  monstrous  not  to  be  acceptable  at  Rome ;  2  of 
the  impudent  forgery  of  the  Donation  they  have  made 
a  dogma  [!].  I  have  come  to  such  a  pass"  that  I  can 
scarcely  doubt  that  the  Pope  is  the  real  Antichrist 
whom  the  world,  according  to  the  accepted  view,  awaits. 
His  life,  behaviour,  words  and  laws  all  fit  the  char- 
acter too  well.  But  more  of  this  when  we  meet."  The 
allusion  to  the  "  accepted  view  "  may  refer  to  a  work, 
reprinted  at  Erfurt  in  1516,  and  which  Luther  must  certainly 
have  known,  viz.  the  "  Booklet  on  the  Life  and  Rule  of 
End-Christ  as  Divinely  decreed,  how  he  corrupteth  the 
world  through  his  false  teaching  and  devilish  counsel,  and 
how,  after  this,  the  two  prophets  Enoch  and  '  Helyas  '  shall 
win  back  Christendom  by  preaching  the  Christian  faith." 

Greater  even  than  the  influence  of  such  writings,  in  con- 
firming him  in  his  persuasion  that  the  Pope  was  Antichrist, 
was  that  of  the  excitement  caused  by  his  polemics.  We 
have  already  had  occasion  to  speak  of  his  stormy  replies  to 
the  "  Epitome  "  of  Silvester  Prierias  and  the  controversial 
pamphlet  of  Augustine  Alveld  the  Franciscan  friar.  In  the 
latter  rejoinder  he  promises  to  handle  the  Papacy  "  merci- 
lessly "  and  to  belabour  Antichrist  as  he  deserves.  "  Circum- 
stances demand  imperatively  that  the  veil  be  torn  from  the 
mysteries  of  Antichrist ;  indeed,  in  their  effrontery  they 
themselves  refuse  to  be  any  longer  shrouded  in  darkness." 
Speaking  of  Prierias,  who  was  a  Roman,  he  says  :  "I 
believe  that  at  Rome  they  have  all  gone  stark,  staring  mad, 
and  become  senseless  fools,  stocks,  stones,  devils  and  a 
very  hell  "  ;  "  what  now  can  we  expect  from  Rome  where 
such  a  monster  is  permitted  to  take  his  place  in  the  Church  ?  "  3 
In  his  replies  to  Prierias  and  Alveld  he  depicts  Antichrist 
in  the  worst  colours  to  be  supplied  by  a  vivid  imagination 
and  an  over-mastering  fury  :  If  such  things  are  taught  in 
Rome,  then  "  the  veritable  Antichrist  is  indeed  seated  in  the 
Temple  of  God,  and  rules  in  the  purple-clad  Babylon  at 
Rome,  while  the  Roman  Curia  is  the  synagogue  of  Satan.  .  .  • 

1  "  Brief weehsel,"  2,  p.  332. 

2  "  Ne  quid  moyistrosissimi  monstri  desit"  etc. 

3  To  Spalatin  (previous  to  June  8),  1520,  "  Brief  weehsel,"  2,  p.  414, 

III. — L 


146         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

Who  can  Antichrist  be,  if  not  such  a  Pope  ?  O  Satan,  Satan, 
how  greatly  dost  thou  abuse  the  patience  of  thy  Creator  to 
thine  own  destruction  I"1 

The  anger  of  the  sensitive  and  excitable  Wittenberg  pro- 
fessor had  been  roused  by  contradiction,  particularly  by  the 
tract  which  hailed  from  Rome,  but  the  arrival  of  the  Bull  of 
Excommunication  moved  him  to  the  very  depths  of  his  soul 
and  led  him  to  commit  to  writing  the  most  hateful  travesties 
of  the  Roman  Papacy. 

In  the  storm  and  stress  of  the  struggle,  which  in  the  latter 
half  of  1520  produced  the  so-called  great  Reformation  works, 
the  Antichrist  theory,  in  its  final  form,  was  made  to  serve 
as  a  bulwark  against  the  Papal  excommunication  and  its 
consequences.  Luther  drops  all  qualifications  and  hence- 
forth his  assertions  are  positive.  The  wider  becomes  the 
breach  separating  him  from  Rome,  the  blacker  must  he 
paint  his  opponents  in  order  to  justify  himself  before  the 
world  and  to  his  own  satisfaction.  Previous  to  its  publica- 
tion he  summed  up  the  contents  of  his  "  An  den  christlichen 
Adel  "  as  follows  :  "  There  the  Pope  is  severely  mauled  and 
treated  as  Antichrist."2  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  com- 
parison is  so  startling  that  he  could  well  speak  of  the  booklet 
as  "  a  trumpet-blast  against  the  world-destroying  tyranny 
of  the  Roman  Antichrist."3  In  the  writing  "  On  the  Baby- 
lonish Captivity,"  a  few  weeks  later,  he  exclaims  :  "  Now 
I  know  and  am  certain  that  the  Papacy  is  the  empire  of 
Babylon."  "  The  Popes  are  Antichrists  and  desire  to  be 
honoured  in  the  stead  of  Christ.  .  .  .  The  Papacy  is  nothing 
but  the  empire  of  Babylon  and  of  the  veritable  Antichrist, 
because  with  its  doctrines  and  laws  it  merely  makes  sin 
more  plentiful ;  hence  the  Pope  is  the  '  man  of  sin  '  and  the 
'  son  of  destruction.'  "4 

Hereby  he  had  prepared  the  way  for  his  attack  upon 
Leo  the  Tenth's  Bull  of  Excommunication,  which  he 
published  in  German  and  Latin  at  the  end  of  October,  1520, 
under  the  title,  "  Widder  die  Bullen  des  Endchrists  "  and 
"  Adversus  execrabilem  Antichristi  buHam."5    Such  a  name 

1  "  Epitome  "  against  Prierias,  loc.  cit. 

2  To  Spalatin,  August  3,  1520,  "  Brief wechsel,"  2,  p.  456. 

3  To  the  same,  August  5,  1520,  ibid.,  p.  457. 

4  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  498,  537  ;  "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  5,  p.  17,  70. 

5  See  vol.  ii.,  p.  49.  The  Latin  text  appeared  a  little  before  the 
German. 


THE  PAPAL  ANTICHRIST  147 

was  well  calculated  to  strike  the  fancy  of  the  masses,  and 
there  cannot  be  the  slightest  doubt  that  Luther  welcomed 
it  as  a  taking,  popular  cry. 

It  is  easy  to  meet  the  objection  that  the  Papal  Antichrist 
was  nothing  more  to  Luther  than  a  serviceable  catchword, 
and  that  he  never  meant  it  seriously.  That  such  was  not 
the  case  we  have  abundantly  proved  already  ;  on  the  con- 
trary, we  have  here  a  clear  outgrowth  of  his  pseudo-mysti- 
cism. He  ever  preserved  it  as  a  sacred  possession,  and  it 
found  its  way  in  due  season  into  the  Schmalkald  Articles1 
and  into  the  Notes  Luther  appended*  to  his  German  Bible.2 
The  idea,  which  never  left  him,  of  the  world's  approaching 
end — with  this  we  shall  deal  at  greater  length  in  vol.  v., 
xxxi.  2 — is  without  a  doubt  closely  linked  with  his  cherished 
theory  of  his  being  the  revealer  of  Antichrist  and  the  chosen 
instrument  of  God  for  averting  His  malice  in  the  latter  days. 

The  Bible  assures  us,  according  to  Luther,  that,  "  after  the 
downfall  of  the  Pope  and  the  delivery  of  the  poor,  no  one  on 
earth  would  be  feared  as  a  tyrant  "  (Psalm  x.  18)  ;  now,  he 
continues,  "  this  would  not  be  possible  were  the  world  to  continue 
after  the  Pope's  fall,  for  the  world  cannot  exist  without  tyrants. 
And  thus  the  prophet  agrees  with  the  Apostle  that  Christ  at  His 
coming  [i.e.  His  second  coming,  for  the  Last  Judgment]  will 
upset  the  holy  Roman  Chair.  God  grant  this  happen  speedily. 
Amen."3 

In  1541,  Luther  wrote  a  Latin  essay  on  the  Chronology 
of  the  World,  which,  in  1550,  was  published  in  German  by 
Johann  Aurifaber  under  the  title  of  "  Luthers  Chronica." 
This  work,  which  witnesses  both  to  Luther's  industry  and 
to  his  interest  in  history,  is  also  made  to  serve  its  author's 
views  on  Antichrist.  Towards  the  end,  alluding  to  what  he 
had  already  said  concerning  the  several  periods  of  the  world's 
history,  he  adds,  that  it  was  "to  be  hoped  that  the  end 
of  the  world  was  drawing  near,  for  the  sixth  millenary  of  its 
history  would  not  be  completed,  any  more  than  the  three  days 
between  Christ's  death  and  resurrection."  Besides,  "at  no 
other  time  had  greater  and  more  numerous  signs  taken  place, 
which  gives  us  a  certain  hope  that  the  Last  Day  is  at  the  very 
door."4     Of  the  year  a.d.   1000  we  here  read:     "The  Roman 

1  "  Symbolische  Biicher,10"  pp.  308,  324,  337,  and  in  particular 
p.  336,  No.  39. 

2  In  the  so-called  "  Lufft  Bible,"  Luther  applies  Daniel  xii.  to  the 
Papal  Antichrist.     Kawerau,  "  Theol.  Literaturztng.,"  1884,  p.  269. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  8,  p.  719  ;  Erl.  ed.,  242,  p.  203,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  work  "  Bulla  Ccence  Domini  "  of  1522.  See  other 
references  in  Kostlin- Kawerau,  1,  pp.  646,  696  ;  ibid.,  2,  pp.  156,  283, 
529,  586.  4  "  Werke,"  Walch's  ed.,  14,  p.  1278. 


148         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

Bishop  becometh  Antichrist,  thanks  to  the  power  of  the 
sword."1 

In  the  same  year  his  tireless  pen,  amongst  other  writings,  pro- 
duced a  Commentary  on  Daniel  xii.  concerning  the  "  end  of  the 
days,"  the  abomination  of  desolation  and  the  general  retribution. 
The  Papal  Antichrist  here  again  supplies  him  with  abundant 
exemplifications  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  ;  the  signs 
foretold  to  herald  the  destruction  of  this  Empire,  so  hostile  to 
God,  had  almost  all  been  accomplished,  and  the  great  day  was 
at  hand. 

Other  people,  and,  among  them  some  of  the  great  lights  of 
Catholicism,  both  before  and  after  Luther's  day,  have  erred  in 
their  exegesis  of  Antichrist  and  been  led  to  expect  prematura ly 
the  end  of  the  world.  Yet  only  in  Luther  do  we  find  united  a 
fanatical  expectation  of  the  end  with  a  minute  acquaintance 
with  its  every  detail,  scriptural  demonstrations  with  anxious 
observation  of  the  events  of  the  times,  all  steeped  in  the  deadliest 
hatred  of  that  mortal  enemy  the  Papacy. 

His  conviction  that  God  was  proving  his  mission  by  signs  and 
wonders  sometimes  assumed  unfortunate  forms,  for  instance, 
when  he  superstitiously  seeks  its  attestation  in  incidents  of  his 
own  day. 

We  see  an  example  of  this  in  the  meaning  he  attached  to  the 
huge  whale  driven  ashore  near  Haarlem,  in  which  he  saw  a  sign 
of  God's  wrath  against  the  Papists.  "  The  Lord  has  given 
them  an  ominous  sign,"  he  writes,  on  June  13,  1522,  to  Speratus, 
"if  so  be  they  enter  into  themselves  and  do  penance.  For  He 
has  cast  a  sea  monster  called  a  whale,  70  feet  in  length  and  35 
feet  in  girth,  on  the  shore  near  Haarlem.  Such  a  monster  it  is 
usual  to  regard  as  a  certain  sign  of  wrath.  May  God  have  mercy 
on  them  and  on  us."2  Other  natural  phenomena,  amongst  them 
an  earthquake  in  Spain,  led  him  to  write  as  follows  to  Spalatin 
at  the  beginning  of  the  following  year  :  "  Don't  think  that  I 
shall  creep  back  into  a  corner  however  much  Behemoth  and  his 
crew  may  rage.  New  and  awful  portents  occur  day  by  day,  and 
you  have  doubtless  heard  of  the  earthquake  in  Spain."3 

When,  in  1536,  extraordinary  deeds  were  narrated  of  a  girl  at 
Frankfurt-on-the-Oder,  and  attributed  to  demoniacal  possession 
(she  could,  for  instance,  produce  coins  from  all  sorts  of  impossible 
places,  even  out  of  men's  beards),  Luther,  we  are  told,  utilised 
in  the  pulpit  these  terrible  signs  and  portents,  "  as  a  warning  to 
abandoned  persons  who  deem  themselves  secure,  in  order  that 
now,  at  last,  they  may  begin  to  fear  God  and  to  put  their  trust  in 
Him."4 

1  "  Werke,"  Walch's  ed.,  14,  p.  1265  f. 

2  "  Briefwechsel,"  3,  p.  397. 

3  January  12,  1523,  ibid.,  4,  p.  62. 

4  Cp.  "  Analecta  Lutherana,"  ed.  Kolde,  p.  242,  and  the  notes  of 
Enders  (in  "  Luthers  Briefwechsel,"  11,  p.  18)  on  the  letter  of  the 
Frankfurt  preacher  Andreas  Ebert  to  Luther,  dealing  with  these 
phenomena.  See  also  N.  Paulus,  "  Lit.  Beilage  "  to  the  "  Koln. 
Volksztng.,"  1908,  No.  30. 


THE  MONK-CALF  149 

At  Freiberg  in  Saxony,  towards  the  end  of  1522,  a  cow 
was  delivered  of  a  deformed  calf.  On  this  becoming  known, 
people,  as  was  then  the  vogue,  set  about  discovering  the 
meaning  of  the  portent.  An  astrologer  of  Prague  first  took 
the  extraordinary  phenomenon  to  refer  to  Luther,  whose 
hateful  and  wicked  behaviour  was  portrayed  in  the  mis- 
carriage. Luther,  on  the  other  hand,  discovered  that  the 
monstrosity  really  represented  a  naked  calf  clothed  in  a 
cowl  (the  skin  was  drawn  up  into  strange  creases  on  the 
back),  and  that  it  therefore  indicated  the  monkish  state,  of 
the  worthlessness  of  which  it  was  a  true  picture,  and  God's 
wrath  against  monasticism.  In  a  tract  published  in  the 
spring,  1523,  he  compared  in  such  detail  and  with  such 
wealth  of  fancy  the  creature  to  the  monks  that  the  work 
itself  was  termed  monstrous.1  The  cowl  represented  the 
monkish  worship,  "  with  prayers,  Masses,  chanting  and 
fasting,"  which  they  perform  to  the  calf,  i.e.  "  to  the  false 
idol  in  their  lying  hearts  "  ;  just  as  the  calf  eats  nothing 
but  grass,  so  "  they  fatten  on  sensual  enjoyments  here  on 
earth."  "  The  cowl  over  the  hind-quarters  of  the  calf  is 
torn,"  this  signifies  the  monks'  "  impurity  "  ;  the  calf's 
legs  are  "their  impudent  Doctors"  and  pillars;  the  calf 
assumes  the  attitude  of  a  preacher,  which  means  that  their 
preaching  is  despicable  ;  it  is  also  blind  because  they  are 
blind  ;  it  has  ears,  and  these  signify  the  abuse  of  the  confes- 
sional ;  with  the  horns  with  which  it  is  provided  it  shall 
break  down  their  power  ;  the  tightening  of  the  cowl  around 
its  neck  signifies  their  obstinacy,  etc.  A  woodcut  of  the 
calf  helped  the  reader  to  understand  the  mysteries  better. 
To  show  that  he  meant  it  all  in  deadly  earnest,  he  ad- 
duced texts  from  Scripture  which  might  prove  how  "  well- 
grounded  "  was  his  interpretation.  He  declares,  that  he 
only  speaks  of  what  he  is  quite  sure,  and  that  he  refrains 
from  a  further,  i.e.  a  prophetic,  interpretation  of  the  "  Monk- 
Calf  because  it  was  not  sufficiently  certain,  although 
"  God  gives  us  to  understand  by  these  portents  that  some 
great  misfortune  and  change  is  imminent."  His  hope  is 
that  this  change  might  be  the  coming  of  the  Last  Day, 
"  since   many   signs   have   so   far   coincided."     Hence   his 

1  "  Deuttung  der  czwo  grewlichen  Figuren  Bapstesels  czu  Rom  und 
Munchkalbs  zu  Freyberg  funden.  Philippus  Melanchthon.  Doctor 
Martinus  Luther."  Wittenberg,  1523.  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  11  p. 
3(59  ff.  j  Erl.  ed.,  29,  p.  2  ff. 


150         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

strange  delusion  concerning  the  calf  goes  hand  in  hand  with 
his  habitual  one  concerning  the  approaching  end  of  the 
world. 

It  would  be  to  misapprehend  the  whole  character  of  the 
writing  to  assert,  as  has  recently  been  done  by  an  historian 
of  Luther,  that  the  author  was  merely  joking,  and  that  what 
he  says  of  the  Monk-Calf  was  simply  a  jest  at  the  expense  of 
the  Pope  and  the  monks.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  every  line  of 
the  work  protests  against  such  a  misrepresentation  of  the 
author  and  his  prophetic  mysticism,  and  no  one  can  read  the 
pamphlet  without  being  struck  by  the  entire  seriousness 
which  it  breathes. 

The  tragic  earnestness  of  the  whole  is  evident  in  the  very 
first  pages,  where  Luther  allows  a  friend  to  give  his  own 
interpretation  of  a  similar  abortion  (the  Pope- Ass)  born  in 
Italy.  Here  the  writer  is  no  other  than  the  learned  Humanist 
Melanchthon,  who,  like  Luther,  with  the  help  of  a  wood- 
cut, describes  and  explains  the  portent.  Pope- Ass  and 
Monk-Calf  made  the  round  of  Germany  together,  in  suc- 
cessive editions.  Melanchthon,  scholar  though  he  was,  is 
not  one  whit  less  earnest  in  the  significance  he  attaches  to 
the  "  Pope-Ass  found  dead  in  1496  in  the  Tiber  at  Rome." 

After  this  double  work,  so  little  to  the  credit  of  German 
literature,  had  frequently  been  reprinted,  Luther,  in  1535, 
added  two  additional  pages  to  Melanchthon' s  text  with  a 
corroboration  entitled  :  "  Dr.  Martin  Luther's  Amen  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  Pope-Ass."  He  here  accepts 
entirely  Melanchthon' s  exposition,  which  was  more  than  the 
latter  was  willing  to  do  for  Luther's  interpretation  of  the 
Monk-Calf.  Melanchthon's  opinion,  for  which  perhaps  more 
might  be  said,  was  that  the  misshapen  calf  stood  for  the 
corruption  of  the  Lutheran  teaching  by  sensuality  and 
perverse  doctrine,  iconoclast  violence  and  revolutionary 
peasant  movements.1 

In  his  "  Amen  "  to  Melanchthon's  Pope- Ass,  Luther 
writes  :  "  The  Sublime,  Divine  Wisdom  Itself  "  "  created 
this  hideous,  shocking  and  horrible  image."  "  Well  may  the 
whole  world  be  affrighted  and  tremble."  "  People  are 
terrified  if  a  spirit  or  devil  appears,  or  makes  a  clatter  in  a 
corner,  though  this  is  but  mere  child's  play  compared  with 
such    an    abomination,    wherein    God    manifests    Himself 

1  To  Camerarius,  April  16,  1525.    "  Corp.  ref.,"  1,  p.  738. 


THE  POPE-ASS  151 

openly  and  shows  Himself  so  cruel.     Great  indeed  is  the 
wrath  which  must  be  impending  over  the  Papacy."1 

In  his  Church-postils  Luther  spoke  of  the  "  Pope- Ass  "  with 
an  earnestness  calculated  to  make  a  profound  impression  upon 
the  susceptible.,  He  referred  to  the  "  dreadful  beast  which  the 
Tiber  had  cast  up  at  Rome  some  years  before,  with  an  ass's  head, 
a  body  like  a  woman's,  an  elephant's  foot  for  a  right  hand,  with 
fish  scales  on  its  legs,  and  a  dragon's  head  at  its  rear,  etc.  All 
this  signified  the  Papacy  and  the  great  wrath  and  chastisement 
of  God.  Signs  in  such  number  portend  something  greater  than 
our  reason  can  conceive."2 

As  Luther  makes  such  frequent  use  of  the  Pope- Ass,  which  he 
was  instrumental  in  immortalising,  for  instance,  in  the  frightful 
abuse  of  the  Pope  contained  in  "  Das  Bapstum  zu  Rom  vom 
Teuffel  gestifft,"3  and  also  circulated  a  woodcut  of  it  in  his  book 
of  caricatures  of  the  Papacy,  adding  some  derisive  verses,4 
which  woodcut  was  afterwards  reproduced  from  this  or  the 
earlier  publication  by  other  opponents  of  the  Papacy,  both  in 
Germany  and  abroad,5  some  particulars  concerning  the  previous 
history  of  the  Pope- Ass  may  here  not  be  out  of  place. 

The  dead  beast  was  said  to  have  been  left  stranded  on  the 
banks  of  the  Tiber  in  January,  1496,  under  the  pontificate  of 
Pope  Alexander  VI.,  when  Italy  was  in  a  state  of  great  distress. 
The  find  made  a  profound  impression,  as  was  only  to  be  expected 
in  those  days  of  excitement  and  superstition ;  it  was  greatly 
exaggerated,  and,  at  an  early  date,  interpreted  in  various  ways. 


(C 


Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  29,  p.  7. 

2  Ibid.,  102,  p.  65. 

3  "  Oh,  dear  little  Pope- Ass,  don't  try  to  lick  .  .  .  for  you  might 
fall  and  break  a  leg  or  do  something  else,  and  then  all  the  world  would 
laugh  at  you  and  say  :  For  shame,  look  what  a  mess  the  Pope- Ass 
has  got  itself  into."  "  You  are  a  rude  ass,  you  Pope- Ass,  and  that  you 
will  ever  remain."  "  When  I  [the  Pope- Ass]  bray,  hee-haw,  hee-haw, 
or  relieve  myself  in  the  way  of  nature,  they  must  take  it  all  as  articles 
of  faith  .  .  .  but  all  is  sealed  with  devil's  ordure — in  the  Decretals — 
and  written  in  the  Pope- Ass's  dung"  ("  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  262,  pp.  148 
seq.,  169).  One  word,  used  in  this  connection,  and  spelt  by  Luther 
"  Fartz,"  he  employs  in  endless  variations.  Pope  Paul  III.  he  calls 
"  Eselfartz-Bapst,"  "  Bapst  Fartzesel,"  "  Fartzesel-Bapst "  and 
"  Eselbapstfartz."  "  We  see,"  remarks  Conrad  Lange,  "  how  the 
apparition  of  the  Roman  monstrosity  continued  to  act  upon  his 
imagination,  and  how,  even  at  the  close  of  his  life,  it  still  appeared 
to  him  suited  to  excite  the  masses  in  the  religious  struggle."  "  Der 
Papstesel,  ein  Beitrag  zur  Kultur-  und  Kunstgesch.  des  Reformations- 
zeitalters."    With  four  illustrations,  Gottingen,  1891,  p.  88. 

4  "  Abbildung  des  Bapstum,"  by  Martin  Luther,  1545.  The  verses 
run  as  follows  : 

"  Was  Gott  selbs  von  dem  Bapstum  helt, 
Zeigt  dis  schrecklich  Bild  hie  gestellt. 
Dafur  jederman  grawen  solt, 
Wenn  ers  zu  Hertzen  nemen  wolt." 

5  Cp.  Lange,  ibid.,  p.  92  ff. 


152         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

The  oldest  description  is  to  be  met  with  in  the  Venetian  Annals 
of  Malipiero,  where  the  account  is  that  given  by  the  ambassador 
of  the  Republic  at  Rome.1  The  monster  was  also  portrayed  in 
stone  in  the  Cathedral  of  Como,  as  an  omen,  so  it  would  seem,  of 
the  misfortunes  of  the  day,  and  of  those  yet  to  be  expected.2 
At  Rome  itself  political  opponents  of  Alexander  VI.  made  use  of 
it  in  their  campaign  against  a  Pope  they  hated,  by  circulating  a 
lampoon — the  oldest  extant — containing  a  caricature  of  the 
event.  A  facsimile  of  this  cut  has  come  down  to  us  in  the  shape 
of  a  copper  plate  made  in  1498  by  Wenzel  of  Olmiitz.3  In  all 
likelihood  a  copy  of  this  very  plate  was  sent  to  Luther  at  the 
beginning  of  1523  by  the  Bohemian  Brethren. 

Melanchthon  and  Luther  diverged  in  their  use  of  this  picture 
from  the  older  and  more  harmless  interpretation,  i.e.  that  which 
saw  in  it  a  reference  to  earthly  trials,  or  a  judgment  on  the 
politics  of  the  Pope.  They,  on  the  contrary,  regarded  it  as  a 
denunciation  by  heaven  of  the  Papacy  itself  and  of  the  Roman 
Church  with  all  its  "  abominations."  Quite  possibly  the  transition 
had  been  quietly  effected  by  the  Bohemian  Brethren.  Luther, 
however,  says  Lange,  "  was  the  first  to  make  it  public  property." 
"  The  Pope-.Ass  is  for  this  reason  the  most  interesting  example 
of  the  whole  teratological  literature,  because  in  it  we  can  see  the 
transition  visibly  effected."  The  same  author  detects  in  the 
joint  work  of  the  two  Wittenbergers  "  a  polemical  tone  hitherto 
unheard  of  "  ;  of  Melanchthon's  Pope- Ass,  he  says  :  "  It  is 
probably  the  most  unworthy  work  we  have  of  Melanchthon's. 
He  himself  naturally  believed  implicitly  in  what  he  wrote.  .  .  . 
That  Melanchthon  acquitted  himself  of  his  task  with  particular 
skill  cannot  be  affirmed."4 

Just  as  the  Monk-Calf  had  been  applied  to  Luther  himself 
previous  to  his  own  polemical  interpretation  of  it,  so,  after  the 
appearance  of  his  and  Melanchthon's  joint  publication,  both 
the  Calf  and  the  Ass  were  repeatedly  taken  by  the  Catholic 
controversialists  to  represent  Luther  and  his  innovations.  The 
sixteenth  century,  as  already  hinted,  loved  to  dwell  upon  and 
expound  such  freaks  of  nature.  Authors  of  repute  had  done  so 
before  Luther,  at  least  to  the  extent  of  making  such  the  subject 
of  indifferent  compositions,  as  the  poet  J.  Franciscus  Vitalis  of 
Palermo  had  done  ("  De  monstro  nolo  ")  in  the  case  of  a  mon- 
strosity said  to  have  been  born  at  Ravenna  in  1511  or  1512; 
the  Humanist  Jacob  Locher,  at  the  turn  of  the  fifteenth  and 
sixteenth  centuries,  dealt  with  a  similar  case  in  his  "  Carmen 
heroicum."  Conrad  Lycosthenes  published  at  Basle,  in  1557,  a 
compendium  of  the  prodigies  of  nature  ("  Prodigiorum  ac  osten- 
torum  chronicon  "),  in  which  he  instances  a  large  number  of  such 
freaks  famous  even  before  Luther's  day.  Of  the  earlier  Humanists 
Sebastian  Brant  composed  some  Elegies  on  the  Marvels  of  Nature. 
The  Wittenberg  work  on  the  Calf  and  Ass  must  be  put  in  its 

1      Annali  Veneti  "  ("  Archivio  storico  italiano,"  7,  p.  422).    Lange, 
ibid.,  p.  18.  2  picture  in  Lange,  ibid.,  plate  2. 

3  Ibid.,  plate  1.  *  P.  84  seq* 


PROOFS  OF  MISSION  153 

proper  setting,  and  judged  according  to  the  standard  of  its  age  ; 
although,  owing  to  its  religious  bias,  it  far  exceeds  in  extravagance 
anything  that  had  appeared  so  far,  it  nevertheless  was  an  out- 
growth of  its  time. 

3.  Proofs  of  the  Divine  Mission.     Miracles  and  Prophecies 

JIow  was  Luther  to  give  actual  proof  of  the  reality  of  his 
call  and  of  his  mission  to  introduce  such  far-reaching 
ecclesiastical  innovations  ? 

Luther  himself,  indirectly,  invited  his  hearers  to  ask  this 
question  concerning  his  calling.  "  Whoever  teaches  anything 
new  or  strange  "  must  be  "  called  to  the  office  of  preacher  " 
he  frequently  declares  of  those  new  doctrines  which  differed 
from  his  own  ;  no  one  who  has  not  a  legitimate  mission  will 
be-  able  to  withstand  the  devil,  but  on  the  contrary  will  be 
cast  down  to  hell.1  Even  in  the  case  of  the  ordinary  and 
regular  office,  Luther  demands  a  legitimate  mission  ;  for  the 
office  of  extraordinary  messenger  of  God,  he  is  still  more 
severe.  For  here  it  is  a  question  of  the  extraordinary  preach- 
ing of  truths  previously  unknown  or  universally  forgotten 
or  questioned,  and  of  the  reintroduction  of  doctrine.  Here 
he  rightly  requires  that  whoever  wishes  to  introduce  any- 
thing new  or  to  teach  something  different  from  the  common, 
must  be  able  to  appeal  to  miracles  in  support  of  his  vocation. 
If  he  is  unable  to  do  this,  let  him  pack  up  and  depart.2 
Elsewhere,  as  he  correctly  puts  it :  "  Where  God  wills  to 
alter  the  ordinary  ways,  He  ever  performs  miracles."3  (Cp. 
vol.  i.,  p.  225  f.) 

His  teaching  is,  "  There  are  two  sorts  of  vocations  to  the 
office  of  preacher";  one  takes  place  without  any  human 
means  by  God  alone  [the  extraordinary  call],  the  other  [the 
ordinary]  is  effected  by  man  as  well  as  by  God.  The  first  is 
not  to  be  credited  unless  attested  by  miracles  such  as  were 
performed  by  Christ  and  His  Apostles.  Hence,  if  they  come 
and  say  God  has  called  them,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  urges 
them,  and  they  are  forced  to  preach,  let  us  ask  them  boldly  : 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  20,  p.  724  :  "  In  malam  rem  abeatP  Cp. 
in  general  the  Wittenberg  sermons  against  Carlstadt  and  the  fanatics 
which  appeared  under  the  title  "  Acht  Sermone,"  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed., 
10,  3,  p.  1  fT.  ;  Erl.  ed.,  28,  p.  202  ff. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  20,  p.  724. 

3  To  the  Council  and  congregation  of  Muhlhausen,  August  21, 
1524,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  240  ;  Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  255  ("  Brief- 
wechsel,"  4,  p.  377). 


154         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

"  What  signs  do  you  perform  that  we  may  believe  you  ?  "x 
(Mark  xvi.  20).  Logically  enough  Luther  also  demanded 
miracles  of  Carlstadt,  Mtinzer  and  the  Anabaptists. 

Which  of  the  two  kinds  of  vocation  must  we  see  in  Luther's 
case  ?  Was  his  the  ordinary  one,  which  keeps  to  the  well- 
trodden  path,  or  the  extraordinary  one,  which  "  strikes  out 
a  new  way  "  ?  Simple  as  the  question  appears,  it  is  never- 
theless difficult  to  give  a  straight  answer  in  Luther's  own 
words. 

As  has  been  proved  by  Dollinger  in  his  work  on  the 
Reformation,  and  as  was  well  seen  even  by  earlier  polemical 
writers,  Luther's  statements  concerning  his  own  mission 
were  not  remarkable  for  consistency.  No  less  than  fourteen 
variations  have  been  counted,  though,  naturally,  they  do 
not  involve  as  many  changes  of  opinion.2  We  shall  be 
nearest  to  the  truth  if  we  assume  his  mission  to  have  been 
an  extraordinary  and  unusual  one.  As  an  ordinary  one 
it  certainly  could  not  be  regarded,  seeing  the  novelty  of  his 
teaching,  and  that  he  himself,  as  "  Evangelist  by  God's 
Grace  "  (see  vol.  iv.,  xxvi.,  4),  professed  to  be  introducing  a 
doctrine  long  misunderstood  and  forgotten.  Besides,  an 
ordinary  call  could  only  have  emanated  from  the  actually 
existing  ecclesiastical  authorities,  with  whom  Luther  had 
altogether  broken.  In  this  connection  Luther  himself,  on 
one  occasion,  comes  surprisingly  near  the  Catholic  view 
concerning  the  right  of  call  invested  in  the  bishops  as  the 
successors  of  the  Apostles,  and  declares  that  "  not  for  a 
hundred  thousand  worlds  would  he  interfere  with  the  office 
of  a  bishop  without  a  special  command."3 

The  assumption  of  an  extraordinary  call  offers,  however, 
an  insuperable  difficulty  which  cannot  fail  to  present  itself 
after  what  has  been  said.  No  extraordinary  attestation  on  the 
part  of  heaven  is  forthcoming,  nor  any  miracle  which  might 
have  confirmed  Luther's  doctrine  ;  God's  witness  on  behalf 
of  His  messenger  by  signs  or  prophecies,  such  as  those  of 
Christ,  of  the  Apostles  and  of  many  of  the  Saints,  was 
lacking  in  Luther's  case,  and  so  was  that  sanctity  of  life 
to  be  expected  of  a  divinely  commissioned  teacher  whose 
mission  it  is  to  bring  men  to  the  truth. 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  152,  p.  5. 

2  Dollinger,  "  Die  Reformation,"  3,  p.  205  ff. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  28,  p.  248  ;  Erl  ed.,  50,  p.  292,  in  the 
exposition  of  John  xviii. 


MIRACLES  155 

No  one  now  believes  in  the  existence  of  any  actual  and 
authentic  miracle  performed  by  Luther,  or  in  any  real 
prophecy,  whether  about  or  by  him.  With  the  tales  of 
miracles  which  once  found  favour  among  credulous  Pietists, 
history  has  no  concern.  Though  here  and  there  some 
credence  still  attaches  to  the  alleged  prediction  of  Hus, 
which  Luther  himself  appealed  to,1  viz.  that  after  the  goose 
(Hus=goose)  would  come  a  swan,  yet  historical  criticism 
has  already  dealt  quite  sufficiently  with  it.  We  should  run 
the  risk  of  exposing  Luther  to  ridicule  were  we  to  enumerate 
and  reduce  to  their  real  value  the  alleged  miracles  by  which, 
for  instance,  he  was  convinced  his  life  was  preserved  in  the 
poisoned  pulpits  of  the  Papists,  or  the  various  "  monstra  " 
and  "  portenta  "  which  accompanied  his  preaching.  Of  such 
prodigies  the  Pope- Ass  and  the  Monk-Calf  are  fair  samples 
(above,  p.  148  ff.).2 

In  reply  to  the  attempts  made,  more  particularly  in  the 
days  of  Protestant  orthodoxy  in  the  sixteenth  century,  to 
compare  the  rapid  spread  of  Protestantism  with  the  miracle 
of  the  rapid  propagation  of  Christianity  in  early  days,  it  has 
rightly  been  pointed  out,  that  the  comparison  is  a  lame  one  ; 
the  Church  of  Christ  spread  because  her  moral  power  enabled 
her  to  impose  on  a  proud- world  mysteries  which  transcend 
all  human  reason  ;  on  a  world  sunk  in  every  lust  and  vice 
a  moral  law  demanding  a  continual  struggle  against  all  the 
passions  and  desires  of  the  heart ;  her  conquest  of  the  world 
was  achieved  without  secular  aid  or  support,  in  fact,  in  the 
very  teeth  of  the  great  ones  of  the  earth  who  for  ages 
persecuted  her  ;  yet  during  this  struggle  she  laid  her  founda- 
tions in  the  unity  of  the  one  faith  and  one  hierarchy  ;  her 
spread,  then,  was  truly  miraculous. 

Luther,  on  the  other  hand,  so  his  opponents  urged,  by  his 
opposition  to  ecclesiastical  authority  and  his  principle  of  the 
free  interpretation  of  Scripture,  was  casting  humility  to  the 
winds  and  setting  up  the  individual  as  the  highest  authority 
in  matters  of  religion  ;  thanks  to  his  "  evangelical  freedom  " 
he  felt  justified  in  deriding  as  holiness-by-works  much  that 
in  Christianity  was  a  burden  or  troublesome  ;  on  the  other 
hand,  by  his  doctrine  of  imputation,  he  cast  the  mantle  of 

1  Cp.,  for  instance,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  3,  p.  387  ;  Erl.  ed., 
252,  p.  87.     "  Auff  das  vermeint  Keiserlich  Edict." 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  11,  p.  369  ff.  ;  Erl.  ed.,  29,  p.  2  ff. 


156         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

Christ's  righteousness  over  all  the  doings  and  omissions  of 
believers  ;  from  the  very  birth  of  his  movement  he  had 
sought  his  principal  support  in  the  favour  of  the  Princes, 
whom,  in  due  course,  he  invested  with  supreme  authority  in 
the  Church  ;  the  spread  of  Lutheranism  was  not  the  spread 
of  a  united  Church,  but,  on  the  contrary,  such  was  the 
diversity  of  opinions  that  Jacob  Andrea?,  a  Protestant 
preacher,  could  say,  in  1576,  in  a  public  address,  that  it 
would  be  difficult  to  find  a  pastor  who  held  the  same  faith  as 
his  sexton.1  From  all  this  the  Church's  sixteenth-century 
apologists  concluded  that  the  spread  of  Luther's  teaching 
was  not  at  all  miraculous. 

Concerning  the  miracle  spoken  of  above,  and  miracles  in  general 
as  proofs  of  the  truth,  Luther  expresses  himself  in  the  third 
sermon  on  the  Ascension,  embodied  in  his  Church-postils.  The 
occasion  was  furnished  by  the  words  of  Our  Lord  :  "  These  signs 
shall  follow  those  who  believe  "  (Mark  xvi.  17),  and  by  the 
pertinent  question  addressed  to  him  by  the  fanatics  and  other 
opponents  :    Where  are  your  miracles  ? 

With  remarkable  assurance  he  will  have  it,  that  to  put  such  a 
question  to  him  was  quite  "  idle  "  ;  miracles  enough  had  taken 
place  when  Christianity  was  first  preached  to  make  good  the 
words  spoken  by  Our  Lord  ;  at  the  present  day  the  Gospel  had 
no  further  need  of  them  ;  such  outward  signs  had  been  suitable 
"  for  the  heathen,"  whereas,  now,  the  Gospel  had  been  "  pro- 
claimed everywhere." — He  does  not  see  that  though  the  Gospel  had 
certainly  been  proclaimed  everywhere  this  was  was  not  his  own 
particular  Gospel  or  Evangel,  and  that  he  is  therefore  begging 
the  question.  He  continues  quite  undismayed  :  Miracles  may 
nevertheless  take  place,  and  do,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  occur 
under  the  Evangel,  for  instance,  the  driving  out  of  devils  and  the 
healing  of  sicknesses.  "  The  best  and  greatest  miracle  "  is, 
however,  the  spread  and  preservation  of  my  doctrine  in  spite  of 
the  assaults  of  devils,  tyrants  and  fanatics,  in  spite  of  flesh  and 
blood,  of  the  "  Pope,  the  Turk  and  his  myrmidons."  Is  it  no 
miracle,  that  "  so  many  die  cheerfully  in  Christ  "  in  this  faith  ? 
Compared  with  this  miracle,  declares  the  orator,  those  miracles 
which  appeal  to  the  senses  are  mere  child's  play  ;  this  is  a 
"  miracle  beyond  all  miracles  "  ;  well  might  people  be  astonished 
at  the  survival  of  his  doctrine  "  when  a  hundred  thousand  devils 
were  striving  against  it."  It  was  only  to  be  expected  that  this 
miracle  should  be  blasphemed  by  an  unbelieving  world,  but 
"  were  we  to  perform  the  most  palpable  miracles,  they  would 
still  despise  them."  This  is  why  God  does  not  work  them 
through  us,  just  as  Christ  Himself,  although  able  to  perform 
miracles  with  the  greatest  ease,  once  refused  to  give  the  Jews 

1  I.  Andrese,  "  Oratio  de  studio  sacr.  litt.  in  acad.  Lipsiensi recitata" 
Tubing.,  1577,  c.  2. 


MIRACLES  157 

"  any  other  sign  than  that  of  the  Prophet  Jonas,"  i.e.  the  resur- 
rection. Luther  concludes  with  an  explanation  of  Christ's 
refusal  and  of  the  miracle  of  Jonas.1 

Hence  he  is  willing  to  allow  the  absence  of  "  palpable 
miracles  "  in  support  of  his  Evangel,  in  default  of  which, 
however,  he  instances  the  miracle  of  his  great  success.  And 
yet,  according  to  his  own  showing,  such  an  attestation  by 
palpable  miracles  would  have  been  eminently  desirable. 
Germany,  he  says,  from  the  early  days  of  her  conversion 
down  to  his  own  time,  had  never  been  in  possession  of 
Christianity,  because  the  real  Gospel,  i.e.  the  doctrine  of 
Justification,  had  remained  unknown.  Only  now  for  the 
first  time  had  the  Gospel  been  revealed  in  all  its  purity, 
thanks  to  his  study  of  Scripture.2  At  the  Council  of  Nica?a 
he  declares,  "  there  was  not  one  who  had  even  tasted  of  the 
Divine  Spirit "  ;  even  the  Council  of  the  Apostles  at 
Jerusalem  was  not  above  suspicion,  seeing  that  it  had  seen 
fit  to  discuss  works  and  traditions  rather  than  faith.3 

Thus  he  requires  that  his  unheard-of  claims,  albeit  not 
attested  by  any  display  of  miracles,  should  be  accepted 
simply  on  his  own  assurance  that  his  teaching  was  based  on 
Holy  Scripture.  "  There  is  no  need  for  us  to  work  wonders, 
for  our  teaching  is  already  confirmed  [by  Holy  Scripture] 
and  is  no  new  thing."4 

Owing  to  the  lack  of  any  Divine  attestation,  Luther  often 
preferred  to  describe  his  mission  as  an  ordinary  one.  In  this 
case  he  derives  his  vocation  to  teach  from  his  degree  of 
Doctor  of  Theology  and  from  the  authority  given  him  by 
the  authorities  to  preach.  "  I,  Dr.  Martin,"  he  says,  for 
instance,  speaking  of  his  doctorate,  "  was  called  and  com- 
pelled  thereto ;     for    I    was   forced    to   become   a   Doctor 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  12,  p.  218-221.  Cp.  Erl.  ed.,  122,  p.  235-238  ; 
Weim.  ed.,  10,  3,  p.  145. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  39  ;  Erl.  ed.,  22,  p.  184  :  "  All  the 
world  is  astonished  and  is  obliged  to  confess  that  we  have  the  Gospel 
almost  .as  pure  and  unchanged  as  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  in  fact,  in 
its  primitive  purity." 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  105  ff.  ;  Erl.  ed.,  28,  p.  141  ff. 
Cp.  ibid.,  15,  p.  39  ff.=22,  pp.  184,  186;  8,  p.  117  =  27,  p.  331  ;  15, 
p.  584  ff.  =  19,  p.  186  ff.  "Hence  it  is  plain  that  the  Councils  are 
uncertain  and  not  to  be  counted  on.  For  not  one  was  so  pure  that  it 
did  not  add  to  or  take  away  from  the  faith.  .  .  .  The  Council  of  the 
Apostles,  though  the  first  and  purest,  left  something  to  be  desired, 
though  it  did  no  harm." 

4  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  16,  p.  36  ;   Erl.  ed.,  35,  p.  61. 


158         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

[of  Holy  Scripture]  against  my  will  and  simply  out  of 
obedience."1  Elsewhere,  however,  he  declares  that  the 
doctorate  was  by  no  means  sufficient  to  enable  one  to  bid 
defiance  to  the  devil,  or  to  equip  a  man  in  conscience  for  the 
task  of  preaching.2  He  was  still  further  confirmed  in  this 
belief  when  he  realised  that  he  owed  his  doctorate  to  that 
very  Church  which  he  represented  as  the  Kingdom  of  Anti- 
christ and  a  mere  Babylon.  He  himself  stigmatised  his 
degree  as  the  "  mark  of  the  Beast,"  and  rejoiced  that  the 
excommunication  had  cancelled  this  papistical  title. 

Neither  could  the  want  of  a  call  be  supplied  by  the 
authorisation  of  the  Wittenberg  Council,  upon  which  at  times 
Luther  was  wont  to  lay  stress.  He  himself  hesitated  to 
allow  that  magistrates  or  Princes  could  give  a  call,  par- 
ticularly where  the  teaching  of  any  of  those  thus  appointed 
by  the  magistrates  ran  counter  to  his  own.  Even  though 
their  teaching  agreed  entirely  with  the  views  of  the  secular 
authorities,  their  mission  was  in  his  eyes  quite  invalid.  He 
even  had  frequent  cause  to  complain,  that  the  Evangel  was 
greatly  hampered  by  the  interference  of  the  secular  author- 
ities and  by  their  sending  out  as  preachers  those  who  had  no 
real  call,  and  were  utterly  unfitted  for  the  office. 

After  what  has  gone  before,  we  can  readily  understand 
how  Luther  came  to  pass  over  in  silence  the  question  of  his 
mission  and  to  appeal  directly  to  his  preaching  of  the  truth 
as  the  sign  of  his  vocation  ;  he  does  not  seem  to  have 
perceived  that  the  main  point  was  to  establish  a  criterion 
for  the  recognition  of  the  truth,  short  of  which  anyone  would 
be  at  liberty  to  set  up  his  pet  error  as  the  "  truth."  "  The 
first,"  though  not  the  only  condition,  was,  he  declared, 
'  that  the  preacher  should  have  an  office,  be  convinced 
that  he  was  called  and  sent,  and  that  what  he  did  was  done 
for  the  sake  of  his  office  "  ;  seeing,  however,  that  even  the 
Papists  fulfilled  these  conditions,  Luther  usually  required 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ecL,  30,  3,  p.  386  =  252,  p.  87. 

2  Cp.ibid.,  10,  2,  p.  105  seq.  =  28,  p.  143.  Cp.  ibid.,  28,  p.  248  =  50, 
p.  292  :  "  Because  I  am  a  doctor  of  Holy  Scripture  I  have  a  right  to  do 
so  [even  to  interfere  in  the  office  of  the  bishops] ;  for  I  have  sworn  to 
teach  the  truth."  Continuation  of  the  passage  quoted  above,  p.  154,  n.  3. 
Thomas  Munzer  he  reproaches  with  having  no  call.  Of  the  necessity 
of  a  call  he  says  :  "If  things  went  ill  in  my  house  and  my  next-door 
neighbour  were  to  break  in  and  claim  a  right  to  settle  matters,  surely 
I  should  have  something  to  say." 


MIRACLES  159 

in  addition  that  the  preachers  "  be  certain  they  have  God's 
Word  on  their  side."1 

In  1522  he  declared  any  questioning  of  his  vocation  to 
be  mere  perversity,  for,  of  his  call,  no  creature  had  a  right 
to  judge.  We  cannot  but  quote  again  this  assurance,  "  My 
doctrine  is  not  to  be  judged  by  any  man,  nor  even  by  the 
angels  ;  because  I  am  certain  of  it,  I  will  judge  you  and  the 
angels  likewise,  as  St.  Paul  says  (Gal.  i.  8),  and  whosoever 
does  not  accept  my  teaching  will  not  arrive  at  blessedness. 
For  it  is  God's  and  not  mine,  therefore  my  judgment  is  God's 
and  not  mine."2 

Such  statements  are  aids  to  the  understanding  of  his 
mode  of  thought,  but  there  are  other  traits  in  his  mental 
history  relating  to  the  confirmation  of  his  Divine  calling. 

Such,  for  instance,  is  his  account  of  the  miracles  by  which 
the  flight  of  certain  nuns  from  their  convents  was  happily 
accomplished. 

The  miracle  which  was  wrought  on  behalf  of  the  nun  Florentina, 
and  in  confirmation  of  the  new  Evangel,  is  famous.  Luther 
himself,  in  March,  1524,  published  the  story  according  to  the 
account  given  by  the  nun  herself,  and  dedicated  it  to  Count 
Mansfeld.3  As  this  circumstance,  and  also  the  Preface,  shows, 
he  took  the  matter  very  seriously,  and  was  entirely  persuaded 
that  it  was  a  visible  "  sign  from  heaven."  Yet  it  is  perfectly 
plain,  even  from  his  own  pamphlet,  that  the  occurrence  was 
quite  simple  and  natural. 

Florentina  of  Upper-Weimar  had  been  confided  in  early 
childhood  to  the  convent  of  Neu-Helfta,  at  Eisleben,  to  be 
educated  ;  later,  after  the  regulation  "  year  of  probation,"  she 
took  the  vows,  probably  without  any  real  vocation.  Having 
become  acquainted  with  some  of  the  writings  of  the  Reformers, 
she  entered  into  correspondence  with  Luther,  and,  one  happy 
day  in  February,  1524,  thanks  to  "  visible,  Divine  assistance," 
escaped  from  her  fellow-nuns — who,  so  she  alleged,  had  treated 
her  cruelly — because,  as  she  very  naively  remarks,4  "  the  person 
who  should  have  locked  me  in  left  the  cells  open."  She  betook 
herself  to  Luther  at  Wittenberg.  Luther  adds  nothing  to  the 
bare  facts  ;  he  has  no  wish  to  deceive  the  reader  by  false  state- 
ments. Yet,  speaking  of  the  incident,  he  says  in  the  Introduction  : 
"  God's  Word  and  Work  must  be  acknowledged  with  fear,  nor 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  48,  p.  139  f. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  107  ;  Erl.  ed.,  28,  p.  144,  at  the 
commencement  of  the  work  "  Wyder  den  falsch  genantten  geystlichen 
Standt." 

3  Ibid.,  15,  p.  86  seq.  =  29,  p.  103  ff.  :  "  Eyn  Geschicht  wie  Got  eyner 
Erbarn  Kloster  Jungfrawe  ausgelffen  hat." 

4  Ibid.,  p.  93  =  112. 


160         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

.  .  .  may  His  signs  and  wonders  be  cast  to  the  winds."  Godless 
people  despised  God's  works  and  said. :  This  the  devil  must  have 
done.  They  did  not  "  perceive  God's  action,  or  recognise  the  work 
of  His  Hands.  So  is  it  ever  with  God's  miracles."  Just  as  the 
Pharisees  disregarded  Christ's  driving  out  of  devils  and  raising 
of  the  dead,  and  only  admitted  those  things  to  be  miracles  which 
they  chose  to  regard  as  such,  so  it  is  still  to-day.  Hence  no  heed 
would  be  paid  to  this  work  of  God  by  which  Florentina  "  had  been 
so  miraculously  rescued  from  the  jaws  of  the  devil."  If  noisy 
spirits,  or  Papists  with  their  holy  water,  performed  something 
extraordinary,  then,  of  course,  that  was  a  real  miracle.  He 
proceeds  :  "  But  we  who,  by  God's  Grace,  have  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  Evangel  and  the  truth,  are  not  at  liberty  to 
allow  such  signs,  which  take  place  for  the  corroboration  of  the 
Evangel,  to  pass  unnoticed.  What  matters  it  that  those  who 
neither  know,  nor  desire  to  know,  the  Evangel  do  not  recognise  it 
as  a  sign,  or  even  take  it  for  the  devil's  work  ?  "x 

The  use  of  an  argument  so  puerile,  and  Luther's  confident 
assumption  of  an  extraordinary  interference  of  Divine  Omni- 
potence suspending  the  laws  of  nature  (which  is  what  a  miracle 
amounts  to),  all  this  could  only  arouse  painful  surprise  in  the 
minds  of  those  of  his  readers  who  were  faithful  to  the  Church. 
Luther  was  here  the  victim  of  a  mystical  delusion  only  to  be 
accounted  for  by  his  dominant  idea  of  his  relation  to  God  and 
the  Church. 

When,  in  the  same  work,  he  goes  on  to  tell  his  readers  that  : 
"  God  has  certainly  wrought  many  similar  signs  during  the  last 
three  years,  which  shall  be  described  in  due  season  "  ;  or  that 
he  merely  recounted  Florentina's  escape  to  Count  Mansfeld  as 
"  a  special  warning  from  God  "  against  the  nunneries,  which 
"  God  had  made  manifest  in  their  own  country,"  we  see  still 
more  plainly  the  extent  and  depth  of  his  pseudo-mystical  views 
concerning  the  miracles  wrought  on  behalf  of  his  Evangel. 

Concerning  his  own  ability  to  work  miracles,  he  is  reticent 
and  cautious.  It  is  true  that,  to  those  who  are  ready  to 
believe  in  him,  he  confidently  promises  God's  wonderful 
intervention  should  the  need  arise ;  the  miraculous  power, 
so  far  as  it  concerns  himself,  he  represents,  however,  as 
bound  by  a  wise  economy,  and,  also,  by  his  own  desire  of 
working  merely  through  the  Word. 

It  should  be  noted  of  the  statements  to  be  quoted  that 
they  betray  no  trace  of  having  been  made  in  a  jesting  or 
rhetorical  mood,  but  are,  on  the  contrary,  in  the  nature  of 
theological  arguments. 

In  1537,  he  declared  :  "I  have  frequently  said  that  I  never 
desired  God  to   grant  me   the  grace  of  working  miracles,   but 

1  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  87-104. 


MIRACLES  161 

rejoice  that  it  is  given  to  me  to  hold  fast  to  the  Word  of  God  and 
to  work  with  it ;  otherwise  they  would  soon  be  saying :  '  The 
devil  works  through  him.'  "  For,  as  the  Jews  behaved  towards 
Christ,  "  so  also  do  our  adversaries,  the  Papists,  behave  towards 
us.  Whatever  we  do  is  wrong  in  their  eyes  ;  they  are  annoyed 
at  us  and  scandalised  and  say  :  The  devil  made  this  people. 
But  they  shall  have  no  sign  from  us."  All  that  Christ  said  to  the 
Jews  was  :  "  Destroy  this  temple,"  that  is,  Me  and  My  teaching  ; 
I  shall  nevertheless  rise  again.  "  What  else  can  we  reply  to  our 
foes,  the  Papists  ?  .  .  .  Destroy  the  temple  if  you  will,  it  shall 
nevertheless  be  raised  up  again  in  order  that  the  Gospel  may 
remain  in  the  Christian  Church."1 — The  great  miracle  required 
of  Christ  was  merely  deferred,  He  performed  it  by  His  actual 
resurrection  from  the  dead.  What  sign  such  as  this  was  it  in 
Luther's  power  to  promise  ? 

Luther  is  even  anxious  not  to  have  any  signs.  "  I  have 
besought  the  contrary  of  God,"  i.e.  that  there  should  be  no 
revelations  or  signs,  so  he  writes  in  1534,  in  the  enlarged  Com- 
mentary on  Isaias,  "  in  order  that  I  may  not  be  lifted  up,  or 
drawn  away  from  the  spoken  Word,  by  the  deceit  of  Satan."2 — 
"  Now  that  the  Gospel  has  been  spread  abroad  and  proclaimed 
to  the  whole  world  it  is  not  necessary  to  work  wonders  as  in  the 
time  of  the  Apostles.  But  should  necessity  arise  and  the  Gospel 
be  threatened  and  suffer  violence,  we  should  then  have  to  set 
about  it  and  work  signs  rather  than  leave  the  Gospel  to  be 
abused  and  oppressed.  But  I  hope  it  will  not  be  necessary,  and 
that  things  will  not  come  to  such  a  pass  as  to  compel  me  to 
speak  with  new  tongues,  for  this  is  not  really  necessary."  Here 
he  is  thinking  of  believers  generally,  though  at  the  close  he 
refers  more  particularly  to  himself.  Speaking  of  all,  he  continues 
prudently  :  "  Let  no  one  take  it  upon  himself  to  work  wonders 
without  urgent  necessity."  "  For  the  disciples  did  not  perform 
them  on  every  occasion,  but  only  in  order  to  bear  witness  to  the 
Word  and  to  confirm  it  by  miraculous  signs."3 

That  he  believed  the  power  to  work  miracles  might  be  ob- 
tained of  God  may  be  inferred  from  many  of  his  declarations 
against  the  fanatics,  where  he  challenges  them  to  prove  them- 
selves the  messengers  of  God  by  signs  and  wonders  ;  for  whoso- 
ever is  desirous  of  teaching  something  new  or  uncommon,  he  had 
said,  must  be  "  called  by  God  and  able  to  confirm  his  calling  by 
real  miracles,"  otherwise  let  him  pack  up  and  go  his  way.4  But 
his  own  doctrines  were  an  entirely  new  thing  in  the  Church,  and, 
in  spite  of  every  subterfuge,  when  thus  inviting  others  to  perform 
miracles,  he  cannot  always  have  been  unmindful  of  the  fact. 
Hence  it  has  been  said  that  he  claimed  a  certain  latent  ability  to 
work  miracles.     It  should,  however,  be  noted  that  he  always 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  46,  p.  205  ff. 

2  "  Opp.  lat.  exeg.,"  25,  p.  120. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  3,  p.  145  f.  ;  Erl.  ed.,  122,  p.  201,  in  the 
Church-postils. 

4  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  20,  p.  724.    See  above,  p.  153. 

III. — M 


162         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

insists  here  that  his  teaching,  unlike  that  of  the  fanatics  and 
other  sects,  Catholics  included,  was  not  new,  but  was  the  original 
teaching  of  Christ,  and  that  therefore  it  stood  in  no  need  of 
miracles. 

Still,  his  confident  tone  brings  him  within  measurable  distance 
of  volunteering  to  work  miracles  in  support  of  his  cause.  "  Al- 
though I  have  wrought  no  such  sign  such  as  perhaps  we  might 
work,  should  necessity  arise,"  etc.1  These  words  are  quite  in 
keeping  with  the  above  :  "  We  should  have  to  set  about  it," 
etc. 

It  is  strange  how  Luther  repeatedly  falls  back  on  Melanchthon's 
recovery  at  Weimar  in  1540.  This  eventually  followed  a  visit  of 
Luther  to  his  friend,  to  encourage  and  pray  for  the  sick  man, 
whose  health  had  completely  broken  down  under  the  influence 
of  melancholy.2  It  is  possible  Luther  saw  in  this  a  miraculous 
answer  to  his  prayer  ;  owing  to  the  manner  in  which  he  re- 
counted the  incident  it  became  a  tradition,  that  the  power  of 
his  prayer  was  stronger  than  the  toils  of  death.  Walch,  in  his 
Life  of  Luther,  wrote,  that  people  had  then  seen  "how  much 
Luther's  prayer  was  capable  of."3 

The  same  scholar  adds,  as  another  "  remarkable  example," 
that  that  godly  and  upright  man,  Frederick  Myconius,  the  first 
evangelical  Superintendent  at  Gotha,  had  assured  him  before 
his  death,  that  only  thanks  to  Luther's  prayers  had  he  been  able 
to  drag  on  his  existence,  notwithstanding  his  consumption,  for 
six  years,  though  in  a  state  of  "  great  weakness."4  In  cheering 
up  Myconius,  and  promising  him  his  prayers,  Luther  had  said  : 
As  to  your  recovery,  "  I  demand  it,  I  will  it,  and  my  will  be 
done.  Amen."5  "  In  the  same  way,"  Walch  tells  us,  "he  also 
prayed  for  his  wife  Catharine  when  she  was  very  ill ;  he  was 
likewise  reported  to  have  said  on  one  occasion  :  '  I  rescued  our 
Philip,  my  Katey  and  Mr.  Myconius  from  death  by  my  prayers.'  " 6 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  12  ;  Erl.  ed.,  28,  p.  288.  "Von 
beider  Gestallt  des  Sacramentes,"  1522. 

2  See  vol.  iv.,  xxi.  2,  towards  the  end. 

3  "  Ausfiihrliche  Nachricht  von  M.  Luthero,"  in  his  edition  of 
Luther,  24,  p.  357.  4  Ibid.,  p.  359  f. 

5  To  Myconius,  January  9,  1541,  "  Briefe,"  5,  p.  327. 

6  P.  361,  where  he  quotes  Mathesius's  Sermons  on  Luther,  13, 
p.  148  (Nuremberg  edition,  1566,  p.  157).  Cp.  "  Brief wechsel,"  13,  p.  11, 
and  what  Weller  says  (vol.  vi.,  xxxviii.  2)  of  the  two  dead  people  raised  to 
life  by  Luther.  In  the  German  "  Table-Talk"  ("  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  59,  p.  3) 
Luther  says  of  prayer  :  "  The  prayer  of  the  Church  performs  great 
miracles.  In  our  own  time  it  has  restored  three  dead  men  to  life  ;  first 
me,  for  often  I  was  sick  unto  death,  then  my  housekeeper  Katey,  who 
was  also  sick  unto  death,  finally  Philip  Melanchthon,  who,  anno  1540, 
lay  sick  unto  death  at  Weimar.  Though  Liberatio  a  morbis  et  corporalibus 
periculis  is  not  the  best  of  miracles,  yet  it  must  not  be  allowed  to  pass 
unheeded  propter  infirmitatem  in  fide.  To  me  it  is  a  much  greater  miracle 
that  God  Almighty  should  every  day  bestow  the  grace  of  baptism,  give 
Himself  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  altar  and  absolve  et  liberal  a  peccato, 
a  morte  et  damnatione  ceterna.  These  are  great  miracles."  Cp.  Forste- 
mann's  notes,  "  Tischreden,"  2,  p.  230. 


PREDICTIONS  163 

How  does  the  case  stand  as  regards  the  gift  of  prophecy, 
seeing  that  Luther  apparently  claims  to  have  repeatedly 
made  use  of  higher  prophetic  powers  ? 

On  more  than  one  occasion  Luther  declares  that  what  he  pre- 
dicted usually  came  to  pass,  even  adding,  "This  is  no  joke."  In 
the  same  way  he  often  says  quite  seriously,  that  he  would  refrain 
from  predicting  this  or  that  misfortune  lest  his  words  should  be 
fulfilled.  We  see  an  instance  of  this  sort  in  his  circular-letter 
addressed,  in  February,  1539,  to  the  preachers  on  the  anticipated 
religious  war.1 

"  I  am  a  prophet  of  evil  and  do  not  willingly  prophesy  anything, 
for  it  generally  comes  to  pass."  This  he  says  in  conversation  when 
speaking  of  the  wickedness  of  Duke  George  of  Saxony.2  In  the 
Preface  to  John  Sutel's  work  on  "  The  Gospel  of  the  Destruction 
of  Jerusalem,"  Luther  says,  in  1539,  speaking  of  the  disasters 
which  were  about  to  befall  Germany  :  "  I  do  not  like  prophesying 
and  have  no  intention  of  doing  so,  for  what  I  prophesy,  more 
particularly  the  evil,  is  as  a  rule  fulfilled,  even  beyond  my  expecta- 
tions, so  that,  like  St.  Micheas,  I  often  wish  I  were  a  liar  and  false 
prophet  ;  for  since  it  is  the  Word  of  God  that  I  speak  it  must 
needs  come  to  pass."3  In  his  Church-postils  he  commences  a 
gloomy  prophecy  on  the  impending  fate  of  Germany  with  the 
words  :  "  From  the  bottom  of  my  heart  I  am  loath  to  prophesy, 
for  I  have  frequently  experienced  that  what  I  predict  comes 
only  too  true,"  the  circumstances,  however,  compelled  him,  etc.4 

No  wonder  then  that  his  enthusiastic  disciples  had  many 
instances  to  relate  of  his  "  prophecies." 

A  casual  reference  of  Luther's  to  a  seditious  rising  to  be 
expected  among  the  German  nobility,  is  labelled  in  the  MS.  copy 
of  Lauterbach's  "  Tagebuch,"  "  Luther's  Prophecy  concerning 
the  rising  of  the  German  nobles."5  Bucer  in  his  Eulogies  on 
Luther  in  the  old  Strasburg  Agenda,  after  mentioning  his  great 
gifts,  says  :  "  Add  also  the  gift  of  prophecy,  for  everything 
happens  just  as  he  foretold  it."  This  we  read  in  a  Leipzig  publica- 
tion,6 in  which,  as  an  echo  of  the  Reformation  Festivities  of  1717, 
a  Lutheran,  referring  to  the  General  Superintendent  of  Altenburg, 
Eckhard,  protests,  "  that  Luther  both  claimed  and  really  pos- 
sessed the  gift  of  prophecy."  Mathesius,  in  his  15th  Sermon  on 
Luther,  speaks  enthusiastically  of  the  latter's  prophecy  against 
those  of  the  new  faith  who  were  sapping  the  foundations  of  the 

1  "  Briefe,"  ed.  De  Wette,  5,  p.  169. 

2  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  324,  andibid.,  quotation  from  Reben- 
stock's  Latin  Colloquies.  Seidemann  in  Lauterbach's  "  Tagebuch  " 
also  quotes  Khummer's  MS.,  p.  397. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  63,  p.  362. 

4  Ibid.,  142,  p.  399. 

5  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  199  :  "  Vaticinium  Lutheri  de 
seditione  nobilium  in  Germanici" 

6  "  Unschuldige  Nachrichten,"  1718,  p.  316,  with  quotation  from 
"Church  Agenda,  p.  52." 


164         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

Wittenberg  teaching  :  "In  our  own  day  Dr.  Martin's  prayers  and 
prophecies  against  the  troublesome  and  unruly  spirits  have,  alas, 
grown  very  powerful  .  .  .  they  were  to  perish  miserably,  a 
prophecy  which  I  heard  from  his  own  lips  :  '  Mathesius,  you 
will  see  what  wanton  attacks  will  be  made  upon  this  Church  and 
University  of  Wittenberg,  and  how  the  people  will  turn  heretics 
and  come  to  a  frightful  end.'  "1 

Even  J.  G.  Walch,2  in  1753,  at  least  in  the  Contents  and  Indices 
to  his  edition  of  Luther's  Works,  quotes  as  "  Luther's  Prophecies 
on  the  destruction  of  Germany,"  the  passage  from  the  German 
"  Table-Talk  " 3  which  foretells  God's  judgments  on  Germany  where 
His  Evangel  was  everywhere  despised.  Yet  this  "  prophecy  " 
is  nothing  more  than  a  natural  inference  from  the  confusion  which 
Luther  saw  was  the  result  of  his  work.  In  the  same  Indices, 
under  the  name  "  Luther,"4  we  again  find  given  as  a  "  prophecy  " 
this  prediction  concerning  Germany,  under  the  various  forms  in 
which  Luther  repeated  it.  Lastly,  under  the  heading  "  Prophecy," 
further  reference  is  made  to  his  predictions  on  the  future  lament- 
able fate  of  his  own  Evangel ;  on  the  distressing  revival  by  his 
preachers  of  the  doctrine  of  good  works  which  he  had  overthrown  ; 
on  the  apostasy  of  the  most  eminent  Doctors  of  the  Church  ;  on 
the  abuse  of  his  books  by  friends  of  the  Evangel  ;  on  the  Saxon 
nobles  after  the  death  of  Frederick  the  Elector,6  and,  finally,  on 
the  fate  of  Wittenberg.6 — In  all  this  there  is,  however,  nothing 
which  might  not  have  been  confidently  predicted  from  the 
existing  state  of  affairs.  Walch  prefaces  his  summary  with  the 
words  :  "  For  Luther's  teaching  is  verily  that  faith  and  doctrine 
proclaimed  by  the  prophets  from  the  beginning  of  the  world," 
just  as  Luther  himself  had  once  said  in  a  sermon,  that  his  doctrine 
had  "been  proclaimed  by  the  patriarchs  and  prophets  five 
thousand  years  before,"  but  had  been  "  cast  aside."7 

We  can  understand  his  followers,  in  their  enthusiasm,  crediting 
him  with  a  true  gift  of  prophecy,  but  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to 
believe  that  he  himself  shared  their  conviction.     Although  the 

1  Mathesius,  "  Historien,"  p.  217.  2  Walch,  23^  p.  1132. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  57,  p.  186.  4  Walch,  23,  p.  688  f. 

5  Ibid.,  14,  p.  .1360:  "  Vaticinium  mense  Augusto,  a.  1532." 
Cp.  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  61,  p.  391  f. 

6  Ibid.,  7,  p.  1353  ;  Erl.  ed.,  182,  p.  23,  in  the  sermon  of  1531  on 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  in  Walch's  edition  under  the  heading  : 
"  Luther's  Prophecy  concerning  Germany,"  "  Luther's  Prophecy  on 
Wittenberg  and  its  magistrates." 

7  Ibid.,  12,  p.  1865,  Sermon  on  the  Gospel  for  the  8th  Sunday 
after  Trinity,  Luke  xix.  41.  In  his  "  Ausfiihrliche  Nachricht  von  M. 
Luthero,"  Walch,  however,  expressly  admits  that  Luther  "  had  not  the 
gift  of  predicting  "  ;  if  he  has  been  spoken  of  as  a  prophet,  this 
depended  on  the  sense  in  which  the  word  was  used  ;  he  had  rightly 
foreseen  much  of  what  would  happen  to  the  German  Church,"  etc. 
"  Neither  did  God  bestow  on  him  the  gift  of  working  miracles,"  but 
he  did  not  need  it,  since  he  preached  no  new  doctrine  and  what  he 
taught  he  proved  sufficiently  from  Holy  Scripture ;  indeed,  the 
Reformation  as  a  whole  was  not  miraculous,  since  God  had  not  inter- 
vened in  it  in  any  extraordinary  manner. 


PREDICTIONS  165 

belief  of  his  disciples  can  be  traced  as  clearly  to  Luther's  own 
assurances,  as  to  the  fulfilment  of  what  he  predicted,  yet  it  is 
uncertain  whether  at  any  time  his  self-confidence  went  to  this 
length.  Whoever  is  familiar  with  Luther's  mode  of  speech  and 
his  habit  of  talking  half  in  earnest  half  in  jest,  will  have  some 
difficulty  in  persuading  himself  that  the  disciples  always  distin- 
guished the  shade  of  their  master's  meaning.  The  disasters 
imminent  in  Germany,  and  the  religious  wars,  might  quite  well 
have  been  foreseen  by  Luther  from  natural  signs,  and  yet  this  is 
just  the  prophecy  on  which  most  stress  is  laid.  Melanchthon,  who 
was  more  sober  in  his  judgments  in  this  respect,  speaks  of  Luther 
as  a  prophet  merely  in  the  general  sense,  as  for  instance  when  he 
says  in  his  Postils  :  "  Prophets  under  the  New  Law  are  those 
who  restore  again  the  ancient  doctrine  ;  such  a  one  was  Dr. 
Martin  Luther."1 

"  What  Luther,  the  new  Elias  and  Paul,  has  prophesied  cannot 
but  come  true,"  writes  a  preacher  in  1562,  "  and  those  who 
would  doubt  this  are  unbelieving  and  godless,  Papists,  Epicureans, 
Sodomites  or  fanatics.  Everything  has  become  so  frightful  and 
bestial,  what  with  blasphemy,  swearing,  cursing,  unchastity  and 
adultery,  usury,  oppression  of  the  poor  and  every  other  vice,  that 
one  might  fancy  the  last  trump  was  sounding  for  the  Judgment. 
What  else  do  the  countless,  hitherto  unheard-of  signs,  wonders 
and  visions  indicate,  but  that  Christ  is  about  to  come  to  judge 
and  punish  ?  "2 

Luther  was  most  diligent  in  collecting  and  making  use  of 
any  prophetical  utterances  which  might  go  to  prove  the 
exalted  character  of  his  mission. 

The  supposed  prophecy  of  Hus,  that  from  his  ashes  would 
arise  a  swan  whose  voice  it  would  be  impossible  to  stifle,  he 
coolly  applied  to  himself.3  He  was  fond  of  referring  to 
what  a  Franciscan  visionary  at  Rome  had  said  of  the  time 
of  Leo  X. :  "A  hermit  shall  arise  and  lay  waste  the  Papacy." 
Staupitz,  he  says,  had  heard  this  prophecy  from  the  mouths 
of  many  at  the  time  of  his  stay  in  Rome  (1510).  He  himself 
had  not  heard  it  there,  but  later  he,  like  Staupitz,  had  come 
to  see  that  he  "  was  the  hermit  meant,  for  Augustinian 
monks  are  commonly  called  hermits."4 

1  "  Postilla,"  pars,  hi.,  Dom.  3,  post  Adv.     "  Corp.  ref.,"  25,  p.  916. 

2  "  Of  the  horrible  monstrosities  and  many  other  similar  signs  of  the 
wrath  of  God  at  this  time,  a  veracious  account  by  a  minister  of  the 
Holy  Evangel,"  1562,  Janssen-Pastor,  "  Gesch.  des  deutschen  Volkes," 
616,  p.  470. 

3  In  addition  to  the  passage  quoted,  p.  155,  n.  1,  cp.  "  Werke,"  Erl. 
ed.,  65,  p.  83,  at  the  end  of  Luther's  edition  of  "  Etliche  Brief e  Johann 
Hussens,"  1537.    See  also  Luther  on  the  swan,  xix.  2,  and  vol.  iv.,  xxvi.  4. 

4  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  438.  "  Tischreden.  Cp.  Khummer  in 
Lauterbach's  "Tischreden,"  p.  36,  n.,  and  Mathesius,  "  Historien,3" 
p.  199.     Cp.  p.  211'. 


166         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

Luther  had  also  learnt  that  a  German  Franciscan  named 
Hilten,  who  died  at  Eisenach  about  the  end  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  had  predicted  much  concerning  the  destruction  of 
monasticism,  the  shattering  of  Papal  authority  and  the 
end  of  all  things.  So  highly  were  Hilten' s  alleged  sayings 
esteemed  in  Luther's  immediate  circle  that  Melanchthon 
placed  one  of  them  at  the  head  of  the  Article  (27)  "  On 
monastic  vows,"  in  his  theological  defence  of  the  Confession 
of  Augsburg ;  "In  1516  a  monk  shall  come,  who  will 
exterminate  you  monks  ;  .  .  .  him  will  you  not  be  able 
to  resist."1  Luther,  before  this,  on  October  17,  1529,  by 
letter,  had  urged  his  friend  Frederick  Myconius  of  Gotha  to 
let  him  know  everything  he  could  about  Hilten,  "  fully, 
entirely  and  at  length,  without  forgetting  anything  "  ;  "  you 
are  aware  how  much  depends  upon  this.  ...  I  am  very 
anxious  for  the  information,  nay,  consumed  with  longing 
for  it."2  His  friend's  report,  however,  did  not  bring  him  all 
he  wanted.3  The  Franciscan  had  predicted  the  fall  of  Rome 
about  1514,  i.e.  too  early,  and  the  end  of  the  world  for  1651, 
i.e.  too  late.  Hence  we  do  not  hear  of  Luther's  having  brought 
forward  the  name  of  this  prophet  in  support  of  his  cause. 
Only  on  one  occasion  does  he  mention  Hilten  as  amongst 
those,  who  "  were  to  be  consigned  to  the  flames  or  other- 
wise condemned."  The  fact  is  that  this  monk  of  Eisenach, 
once  an  esteemed  preacher,  was  never  "  condemned  "  or 
even  tried  by  the  Church,  although  Luther  in  the  above 
letter  to  Myconius  says  that  he  "  died  excommunicate." 
Hilten  died  in  his  friary,  fortified  with  the  Sacraments,  and 
at  peace  with  the  Church  and  his  brother  monks,  after 
beseeching  pardon  for  the  scandal  he  had  given  them.  The 
Franciscans  had  kept  in  custody  the  unfortunate  man,  who 
had  gone  off  his  head  under  the  influence  of  astrology  and 
apocalyptic  dreams,  in  order  that  his  prophecies  might  not 
do  harm  in  the  Church  or  the  Order.  He  was  not,  however, 
imprisoned  for  life,  still  less  was  he  immured,  as  some  have 
said  ;  he  was  simply  kept  under  fatherly  control  ("  paterne 
custoditum  "),  that  those  of  his  brethren  who  believed  in 
him  might  not  take  any  unfair  advantage  of  the  old  man.4 

1  "  Symbolische  Biicher,"  10,  p.  270  f. 

2  "  Briefwechsel,"  7,  p.  171. 

3  Reply  of  Myconius,  December  2,  1529,  ibid.,  p.  194. 

4  Cp.  the  account  of  an  apostate  friar,  who  had  been  a  comrade  of 
Hilten's  and  who  was  with  him  during  his  last  days,  in  Enders,  "  Luthers 


PREDICTIONS  167 

In  the  widely  read  new  edition  of  the  book  of  Prophecies 
by  Johann  Lichtenberger,  astrologer  to  the  Emperor 
Frederick  III.  (1488),  republished  by  Luther  in  1527  with  a 
new  Preface,  the  latter's  ideas  play  a  certain  part.  Luther 
did  not  regard  these  Prophecies  as  a  "  spiritual  revelation  "  ; 
they  were  merely  astrological  predictions,  as  he  says  in  the 
Preface,1  views  which  might  often  prove  to  be  questionable 
and  faulty  ;  nevertheless,  his  "  belief  "  is  "  that  God  does 
actually  make  use  of  heavenly  signs,  such  as  comets,  eclipses 
of  the  sun  and  the  moon,  etc.,  to  announce  impending  mis- 
fortune and  to  warn  and  affright  the  ungodly."2  "  I  myself 
do  not  scorn  this  Lichtenberger  in  everything  he  says,  for  he 
has  come  right  in  some  things."3  Luther  is  principally 
concerned  with  the  chastisements  predicted  by  Lichten- 
berger, but  not  yet  accomplished — as  the  "  priestlings  " 
rejoiced  to  think — but,  still  to  overtake  them  owing  to  their 
hostility  to  the  Lutheran  teaching.  "  Because  they  refuse  to 
amend  their  impious  life  and  doctrine,  but  on  the  contrary 
persevere  in  it  and  grow  worse,  I  also  will  prophesy  that  in  a 
short  time  their  joy  shall  be  turned  to  shame,  and  will  ask 
them  kindly  to  remember  me  then."4  Later  he  speaks 
incidentally  of  Lichtenberger  as  a  "  fanatic,  but  still  one 
who  had  foretold  many  things,  for  this  the  devil  is  well 
able  to  do."5 

During  his  stay  at  the  Wartburg  he  had  occasion  to  reflect 
on  the  ancient  prophecy  concerning  an  Emperor  Frederick, 
who  should  redeem  the  Holy  Sepulchre.  He  was  inclined  to 
see  in  this  Frederick,  his  Elector,  whose  right  hand  he  him- 
self was.    The  difficulty  that  the  Elector  was  not  Emperor 

Brief wechsel,"  7,  p.  198  ;  cp.  also  the  literature  quoted  by  Enders. 
Hilten's  prophecy,  and  likewise  that  of  the  Roman  Franciscan,  was 
nevertheless,  in  1872,  quoted  in  Luther's  favour  by  C.  F.  Kahnis, 
Professor  of  Theology  at  the  University  of  Leipzig,  in  his  "  Gesch.  der 
deutschen  Reformation,"  1,  p.  178.  He  says  :  "What  the  Spirit  of 
God  in  him  bore  witness  to  in  condemnation  of  the  fallen  Church  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  was  attested  by  prophetic  utterances."  "  While 
Luther  was  at  school  at  Eisenach,  a  monk  named  Hilten  languished 
in  the  prison  of  the  Franciscan  convent,"  etc.  He  appeals  to  Mathesius, 
"  Historien,"  Predigt,  15,  p.  319  ;  V.  E.  Loscher,  "  Vollstandige 
Reformationsacta,"  1,  1720,  p.  148,  and  K.  Jurgens,  "  Luther  von 
seiner  Geburt  bis  zum  Ablassstreite,"  1,  1846,  p.  295. 

1  Preface  reprinted  in  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  63,  p.  250  ff.     Lichten- 
berger's  book  was  re-translated  in  this  edition  by  Stephen  Roth. 

2  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  145. 

3  Preface,  p.  253.  *  Ibid.,  p.  258. 
5  Ibid.,  2,  p.  641,  n.  1,  to  p.  145. 


168         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

did  not  appear  to  him  insuperable,  since  at  Frankfurt  the 
votes  of  the  other  electors  had  been  given  to  Frederick,  so 
that  he  might  have  been  "  a  real  emperor  had  he  so  desired." 
Still,  he  was  loath  to  insist  upon  such  an  artifice  ;  this 
solution  of  the  difficulty  might,  he  says,  be  termed  mere 
child's  play.  What  is  much  clearer  to  him  is,  that  the  Holy 
Sepulchre  of  the  prophecy  is  "  the  Holy  Scripture  wherein 
the  truth  of  Christ  lies  buried,  after  having  been  put  to  death 
by  the  Papists.  ...  As  for  the  actual  tomb  in  which  the 
Lord  lay  and  which  is  now  in  the  hands  of  the  Saracens,  God 
cares  no  more  about  it  than  about  the  Swiss  cows.  But  no 
one  can  deny  that  amongst  you,  under  Duke  Frederick, 
Elector  of  Saxony,  the  living  truth  of  the  Gospel  has  shone 
forth."1 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  8,  p.  561  ;  Erl.  ed.,  28,  p.  139  f.  "  Vom 
Missbrauch  der  Messen."  The  passage  commences  :  "  When  a  child 
I  frequently  heard  a  prophecy  current  in  the  country,  viz.  that  an 
Emperor  Frederick  would  rescue  the  Holy  Sepulchre."  This  had  been 
misunderstood  and  applied  to  the  tomb  at  Jerusalem  ;  but  it  is  "  of 
the  nature  of  prophecies  to  be  fulfilled  before  being  understood."  The 
passage  on  Frederick  also  occurs  in  the  Latin  text  of  this  work,  pub- 
lished previously  under  the  title  "  De  abroganda  missa."  In  "  Werke," 
Weim.  ed.,  8,  p.  475,  we  there  read  :  "  Videtur  mihi  ista  {prophetia)  in  hoc 
Fridrico  nostro  impleta."  Luther  then  proceeds  to  recount  in  a  pleasant 
vein  certain  doubtful  interpretations. 


CHAPTER    XVII 

GLIMPSES    OF   A   REFORMER'S    MORALS 

1.  Luther's  Vocation.  His  Standard  of  Life 
Reading  the  lives  of  great  men  really  sent  by  God  who  did 
great  things  for  the  salvation  of  souls  by  their  revelations 
and  their  labours,  whether  narrated  in  the  Bible  or  in  the 
history  of  the  Christian  Church,  we  find  that,  without 
exception,  their  standards  were  high,  that  they  sought  to 
convert  those  with  whom  they  came  in  contact  primarily  by 
their  own  virtuous  example,  that  their  aim  was  to  promote 
the  spread  of  their  principles  and  doctrines  by  honest, 
truthful  and  upright  means,  and  that  their  actions  bore  the 
stamp,  not  of  violence,  but  of  peaceableness  and  charity 
towards  all  brother  Christians. 

Luther's  friends  have  always  protested  against  his  being 
compared  with  the  Saints.  Be  their  reason  what  it  may, 
when  it  is  a  question  of  the  moral  appreciation  of  the  founder 
of  a  religious  movement  everyone  should  be  ready  to  admit, 
that  such  a  founder  must  not  present  too  great  a  contrast 
with  those  great  harbingers  of  the  faith  in  olden  days  whom 
he  himself  claims  as  his  ideal,  and  in  whose  footsteps  he 
pretends  to  tread.  Luther  is  anxious  to  see  St.  Paul  once 
more  restored  to  his  pinnacle  ;  his  doctrine  he  would  fain 
re-establish.  This  being  so,  we  may  surely  draw  his  atten- 
tion to  the  character  of  St.  Paul  as  it  appears  to  us  in  his 
Epistles  and  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  St.  Paul  brought 
into  this  dark  world  a  new  light,  unknown  heretofore, 
which  had  been  revealed  to  him  together  with  his  Divine 
calling.  His  vocation  he  fostered  by  heroic  virtues,  and  by 
a  purity  of  life  free  from  all  sensuality  or  frivolity,  preaching 
with  all  the  attraction  conferred  by  sincerity  and  honesty 
of  purpose,  in  words  and  deeds  full  of  fire,  indeed,  yet  at  the 
same  time  breathing  the  most  patient  and  considerate 
charity. 

169 


170         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

Although  we  may  not  exact  from  Luther  all  the  virtues  of 
a  St.  Paul,  yet  he  cannot  complain  if  his  private  life  and  his 
practice  and  theory  of  morals  be  compared  with  the  sublime 
mission  to  which  he  laid  claim.  It  is  true,  that,  when  con- 
fronted with  such  a  critical  test,  he  was  accustomed  to  meet 
it  with  the  assertion  that  his  Evangel  was  unassailable 
whatever  his  life  might  be.  This,  however,  must  not  deter 
us  from  applying  the  test  in  question,  calmly  and  cautiously, 
with  every  precaution  against  infringing  the  truth  of 
history  and  the  claims  of  a  just  and  unbiassed  judgment 
which  are  his  right  even  at  the  hands  of  those  whose  views 
are  not  his. 

The  following  is  merely  an  appreciation  of  some  of  the 
sides  of  his  character,  not  a  general  conspectus  of  his  morals. 
Such  a  conspectus  will  only  become  possible  at  the  conclusion 
of  our  work.  This  we  mention  because  in  what  follows  we 
shall  be  considering  almost  exclusively  Luther's  less  favour- 
able traits  and  ethical  principles.  It  is  unavoidable  that  we 
should  consider  here  in  this  connection  his  own  testimonies, 
and  those  of  other  witnesses,  which  militate  against  his 
Divine  mission.  His  better  points,  both  as  man  and  writer, 
will  be  impartially  pointed  out  elsewhere. 

Luther  himself  admitted  that  Christ's  words  :  "  By  their 
fruits  ye  shall  know  them,"  established  a  real  standard 
for  the  teachers  of  the  Gospel.  He  was  familiar  with  the 
words  of  St.  Bona  venture  :  "  The  sign  of  a  call  to  the  office 
of  preacher  is  the  healing  of  the  hearers  from  the  maladies 
of  sin."1  He  knew  that  the  preacher's  virtue  must  be  im- 
parted to  others,  and  that  the  sublimity  and  purity  of  his 
doctrine  must  be  reflected  in  the  amelioration  of  his 
followers. 

A  mere  glance  at  Wittenberg  at  the  time  of  the  religious 
subversion  will  suffice  to  show  how  little  such  conditions 
were  realised.  Valentine  Ickelsamer  was  referring  to  well- 
known  facts  when  he  confronted  Luther  with  the  words 
of  Christ  quoted  above.  He  added  :  "  You  boast  of  holding 
the  true  doctrine  on  faith  and  charity  and  you  shriek 
that  men  merely  condemn  the  imperfections  of  your  life." 
He  is  here  referring  to  Luther's  evasion.  The  latter  had 
complained  that  people  under- valued  him  and  were  scandal- 
1  Bonaventura,  "  Expos,  in  cap.  ix.  Lucse." 


CONTEMPORARY  CRITICS  171 

ised  at  his  life  and  that  of  his  friends.  In  1538,  for  instance, 
he  was  obliged,  with  the  help  of  Jonas,  Cruciger  and 
Melanchthon,  to  dissociate  himself  from  a  theologian,  Master 
George  Karg,  who  had  been  advocating  at  Wittenberg 
doctrines  which  differed  from  his  own  ;  of  him  he  wrote  : 
"  He  is  an  inexperienced  young  man  and,  possibly,  was 
scandalised  at  us  personally  in  the  first  instance,  and  then 
fell  away  in  his  doctrine  ;  for  all  those  who  have  caused 
dissensions  among  us  have  begun  by  despising  us  person- 
ally."1 

Amongst  the  Catholic  writers  who  pointed  out  to  the 
Wittenberg  professor  that  his  lack  of  a  Divine  call  or  higher 
mission  was  proved  by  the  visible  absence  of  any  special 
virtue,  and  by  his  behaviour  as  a  teacher,  we  may  mention 
the  Franciscan  Johann  Findling  (Apobolymscus).  In  the 
beginning  of  1521  the  latter  published  an  "  admonition  " 
addressed  to  Luther  which  relies  chiefly  on  the  reasons 
mentioned  above.2  In  this  anonymous  writing  the  Fran- 
ciscan deals  so  considerately  with  the  monk,  who  was  already 
then  excommunicate,  that  recent  Protestant  writers  have 
actually  contrasted  him  with  the  "  Popish  zealots."3  Luther 
he  terms  his  "  beloved,"  and  is  unwilling  even  to  describe 
him  as  a  "  heretic,"4  following  in  this  the  example  of  many 
other  monks  who  showed  the  same  scruple,  probably  on 
account  of  their  own  former  vacillation.  Excuses  of  various 
kinds  are  not  wanting  in  Findling's  letter. 

What  is  of  interest  in  the  present  connection  is  the  question 
the  author  sets  before  the  originator  of  the  schism  in  the  follow- 
ing challenge  :  "If  you  are  a  prophet  or  seer  sent  by  God  to 
point  out  the  truth  to  men,  let  us  perceive  this,  that  we  may 
believe  in  you,  approve  your  action  and  follow  you.  If  what  you 
preach  and  write  is  of  Divine  revelation,  then  we  are  ready  to 
honour  you  as  a  messenger  sent  from  heaven.  .  .  .  But  it  is 
written  :    '  Believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  if   they 

1  To  the  Elector  Johann  Frederick  of  Saxony,  January  4,  1538, 
"Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  55,' p.  195;  "  Brief e,"  ed.  De  Wette,  5,  p.  95 
("  Brief wechsel,"  11,  p.  323). 

2  Reprinted  in  "  Briefwechsel  Luthers,"  3,  p.  38  seq.  That  the 
author  was  J.  Findling  has  been  proved  by  N.  Paulus  in  his  work 
"Kaspar  Schatzgeyer,"  1898,  p.  137  f.  Cp.  "  Katholik,"  1900,  ii., 
p.  90  ff.  Enders,  "  Briefwechsel  Luthers,"  3,  p.  65,  n.  1,  should  be 
corrected  from  this. 

3  See  Enders,  ibid.  4  Ibid.,  p.  56. 


172  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

be  of  God  '  (1  John  iv.  1).  .  .  .  We  are  unable  to  believe  in 
you  because  so  much  strife,  so  many  intrigues,  insults,  bitter 
reproaches,  vituperation  and  abuse  proceed  from  you.  .  .  . 
Quarrels,  blasphemies  and  enmities  are,  as  St.  Ambrose  says,  foreign 
to  the  ministers  of  God."1  Your  acrimony,  your  vituperation, 
your  calumny  and  abuse  are  such  that  one  is  forced  to  ask  : 
''  Where  is  your  Christian  spirit,  or  your  Lutheran  spirit,  for, 
according  to  some,  Lutheran  means  the  same  as  Christian  ?  " 
Has  not  Christ  commanded  :  "  Love  your  enemies,  pray  for 
those  who  persecute  you  ?  Certainly  if  prayer  consists  in  calumny, 
abuse,  detraction,  reviling  and  cursing,  then  you  pray  excellently 
and  effectually  enough.  Not  one  of  all  those  I  have  ever  read 
curses  and  abuses  others  as  you  do."2 

The  writer  also  points  out  how  Luther's  followers  imitate  and 
even  outdo  him  ;  they  were  likewise  turning  his  head  by  their 
praises  ;  they  sang  hymns  in  his  honour,  but  hymns  coming 
from  such  lips  were  a  poor  tribute.  Nor  was  the  applause  of  the 
masses  beyond  suspicion,  for  it  merely  showed  that  what  he 
wrote  was  to  the  taste  of  the  multitude ;  for  instance,  when  he 
blamed  the  authorities  and  cited  them  before  his  tribunal.  It 
was  his  rude  handling  of  his  ghostly  superiors  which  had  brought 
the  nobility  and  the  knights  to  his  side.  Had  he  overwhelmed 
them  and  the  laity  with  such  reproaches  as  he  had  heaped  upon 
the  spiritual  authorities,  then  "  I  know  not  whether  you  would 
still  be  in  the  land  of  the  living."3 

Apart  from  his  want  of  charity  and  his  censoriousness,  other 
very  un-apostolic  qualities  of  Luther's  were  his  pride  and 
arrogance,  his  utter  disdain  for  obedience,  his  irascibility,  his 
jealousy  and  his  want  of  seriousness  in  treating  of  the  most 
important  questions  that  concerned  humanity  ;  the  childish, 
nay,  womanish,  outbursts  in  which  notoriously  he  was  wont  to 
indulge  could  only  serve  to  humble  him  in  his  own  eyes. 

Luther  must  have  felt  keenly  the  Franciscan's  allusions  to  his 
untruthfulness  and  evasiveness,  more  particularly  in  his  conduct 
towards  the  Pope,  whereas  Holy  Scripture  expressly  declares 
that  "  God  has  no  need  of  a  lie  "  (Job  xiii.  7). 

He  concludes  by  saying,  that  if  Luther  "  is  a  good  and  gentle 
disciple  of  Christ,"  then  he  will  not  disregard  this  exhortation 
to  turn  back  and  recant. 

Thus  the  Franciscan.  It  is  to  be  feared,  however,  that  Luther 
never  read  the  letter  to  its  end.  As  he  himself  said,  he  had 
nothing  but  scorn  for  anything  that  Catholic  censors  might  say 
to  him.  "  Attacks  from  without  only  serve  to  render  me  proud 
and  arrogant,  and  you  may  see  from  my  books  how  I  despise  my 
gainsayers  ;  I  look  upon  them  as  simple  fools."4  His  state  of 
mind  even  then  was  such  as  to  make  him  incapable  of  calmly 
weighing  such  reproofs.  In  the  following  sentences  the  Franciscan 
above  referred  to  has  aptly  described  Luther's  behaviour  :   Who- 

1  See  Enders,  p.  52  f. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  60.  3  Ibid.,  p.  49. 

*  Cp.  Dollinger,  "  Luther,  eine  Skizze,"  p.  53  ("  KL.,"  82,  col.  340). 


CONTEMPORARY  CRITICS  173 

ever  allows  himself  to  be  overtaken  by  hatred  and  carried  away 
by  fury,  "  blots  out  the  light  of  reason  within  himself  and  darkens 
his  comprehension,  so  that  he  is  no  longer  able  to  understand  or 
judge  aright.  He  rushes  blindly  through  the  surrounding  fog 
and  darkness,  and  knows  not  whither  his  steps  will  carry  him. 
Many  people,  dearest  Martin,  believe  you  to  be  in  this  state."1 
"  In  this  condition  of  mental  confusion  you  cannot  fail  to  go 
astray  ;  you  will  credit  yourself  with  what  is  far  beyond  you  and 
quite  outside  your  power."2  In  such  a  man  eloquence  was  like 
a  sword  in  the  hand  of  a  madman,  as  was  sufficiently  apparent  in 
the  case  of  Luther's  followers  who  attempted  to  emulate  his  zeal 
with  the  pen.3 

Erasmus  was  another  moderate  critic.  In  the  matter  of 
Luther's  life,  as  was  to  be  expected  from  one  who  had  once 
praised  him  in  this  particular,  as  a  rule  he  is  inclined  to  be 
cautious,  however  unable  to  refrain  from  severely  censuring 
his  unevangelical  manner  of  proceeding.  The  absence  of 
the  requisite  standard  of  life  seemed  to  Erasmus  sufficient 
to  disprove  Luther's  claim  to  the  possession  of  the  Spirit  of 
God  and  a  higher  mission.  "  You  descend  to  calumny, 
abuse  and  threats  and  yet  you  wish  to  be  esteemed  free 
from  guile,  pure,  and  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  not  by  human 
passion."4  "  Can  the  Evangel  then  be  preached  in  so  un- 
evangelical a  manner  ?  '  "  Have  all  the  laws  of  propriety 
been  abrogated  by  the  new-born  Evangel,  so  that  each  one 
is  at  liberty  to  make  use  of  any  method  of  attack  either  in 
word  or  writing  ?  Is  this  the  liberty  which  you  restore  to 
us  ?  "5  He  points  more  particularly  to  Luther's  demagogism 
as  alien  to  the  Christian  spirit :  "  Your  object  is  to  raise 
revolt,  and  you  are  perfectly  aware  that  this  has  often  been 
the  result  of  your  writings.  Not  thus  did  the  Apostles  act. 
You  drag  our  controversial  questions  before  the  tribunal  of 
the  unlearned."6  "  God  Almighty  !  What  a  contrast  to  the 
spirit  of  the  Gospel !  "  exclaims  Erasmus,  referring  to  some 
of  Luther's  abuse.  "  A  hundred  books  written  against  him 
would  not  have  alienated  me  from  him  so  much  as.  these 
insults." 7 

Amongst  the  admonitions  addressed  to  Luther  at  an 
early  date  by  men  of  weight,  that  of  Zaccaria  Ferreri,  the 

1  "  Brief wechsel,"  3,  p.  57. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  55.  3  Ibid.,  p.  48. 

4  "  Hyperaspistes,"  1,  "  Opp.,"  ed.  Ludg.,  10,  col.  1327. 

5  Ibid.,  col.  1335.  6  Cp.  col.  1334. 

7  To  Duke  George  of  Saxony,  June  30,  1530,  "  Opp.,"  col.  1293. 


174         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

Papal  Legate  in  Poland,  written  in  1520  and  published  in 
1894,  is  particularly  noteworthy.  From  the  self-love  and 
arrogance  which  he  found  displayed  in  Luther's  character 
he  proves  to  him  that  his  could  not  be  the  work  of  God  : 
"  Do  open  your  eyes  and  see  into  what  an  abyss  of  delusion 
you  are  falling.  You  seem  to  fancy  that  you  alone  are  in 
the  sunlight  and  that  all  the  rest  of  the  world  is  seated  in  the 
darkness  of  night.  .  .  .  You  reproach  Christianity  with 
groping  about  in  error  for  more  than  a  thousand  years  ; 
in  your  madness  you  wish  to  appear  wiser  and  better  than 
all  other  mortals  put  together,  to  all  of  whom  you  send 
forth  your  challenge.  Rest  assured  your  opponents  are  not 
so  dull-witted  as  not  to  see  through  your  artfulness  and  to 
perceive  the  inconsistency  and  frivolity  of  your  doctrines." 
Ferreri  also  addressed  the  following  appeal  to  Luther : 
"  If  you  are  determined  to  cast  yourself  into  the  abyss  of 
death,  at  least  take  pity  on  the  unfortunate  people  whom 
you  are  daily  infecting  with  your  poison,  whose  souls  you  are 
destroying  and  dragging  along  with  you  to  perdition.  The 
Almighty  will  one  day  require  of  you  their  blood  which  you 
have  drunk,  and  their  happiness  which  you  have  destroyed."1 

Such  voices  from  the  past  help  to  make  us  alive  to  the 
importance  of  the  question  which  forms  the  subject  of  the 
present  section.  Luther's  own  ethical  practice  when  defend- 
ing the  divinity  of  his  mission,  more  particularly  his  doctrine 
of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  against  all  doubts  and  "  tempta- 
tions "  which  occurred  to  him,  affords  us,  however,  the  best 
and  clearest  insight  into  his  moral  standards.  Here  his 
moral  attitude  appears  in  a  most  singular  light. 

We  may  preface  what  follows  with  some  words  of  the 
Protestant  historian  Gottlieb  Jacob  Planck  (flSSS)  : 
"  When  it  is  necessary  to  lay  bare  Luther's  failings,  an 
historian  should  blush  to  fancy  that  any  excuse  is  required 
for  so  doing."2 

"  Temptations  "  to  doubt  were  not  uncommon  in  Luther's 
case  and  in  that  of  his  friends.  He  accordingly  instructs  his 
disciples  to  combat  them  and  to  regain  their  lost  equanimity 
by  the  same  method  which  he  himself  was  in  the  habit  of 

1  "  Hist.  Jahrb.,"  15,  1894,  p.  374  ff.,  communicated  by  Joh. 
Fijalek. 

2  "  Gesch.  des  protectant.  Lehrbegriffs,"  2,  p.  135. 


REMEDIES  FOR  DEPRESSION      175 

employing.  Foremost  amongst  these  instructions  is  one 
addressed  to  his  pupil  Hieronymus  Weller  of  Molsdorf,  a 
native  of  Freiberg,  who,  whilst  at  Wittenberg,  had,  under 
Luther's  influence,  relinquished  the  study  of  the  law  for 
that  of  theology.  He  was  received  into  Luther's  household 
as  a  boarder  in  1527,  and  in  1535,  after  having  secured  his 
Doctorate  of  Theology,  he  was  still  resident  there.  He  was 
one  of  the  table-companions  who  took  notes  of  Luther's 
"  Table-Talk."  This  young  man  was  long  and  grievously 
tormented  with  anxiety  of  mind  and  was  unable  to  quiet,  by 
means  of  the  new  Evangel,  the  scruples  of  conscience  which 
were  driving  him  to  despair. 

In  1530,  Luther,  writing  from  the  Castle  of  Coburg,  gave 
him  the  following  counsel ;    we  must  bear  in  mind  that  it 
comes  from  one  who  was  himself  then  struggling  with  the 
most  acute  mental  anxiety.1    "  Sometimes  it  is  necessary  to 
drink  more  freely,  to  play  and  to  jest  and  even  to  commit 
some    sin   ('  peccatum   aliquod  faciendum ')    out   of  hatred 
and  contempt  for  the  devil,  so  that  he  may  get  no  chance  of 
making  a  matter  of  conscience  out  of  mere  trifles  ;    other- 
wise we  shall  be  vanquished  if  we  are  too  anxious  about  not 
committing  sin.  .  .  .  Oh  that  I  could  paint  sin  in  a  fair 
light,2  so  as  to  mock  at  the  devil  and  make  him  see  that  I 
acknowledge  no  sin  and  am  not  conscious  of  having  com- 
mitted any  !    I  tell  you,  we  must  put  all  the  Ten  Command- 
ments,  with   which  the   devil  tempts   and  plagues   us   so 
greatly,  out  of  sight  and  out  of  mind.     If  the  devil  up- 
braids us  with  our  sins  and  declares  us  to  be  deserving  of 
death  and  hell,  then  we  must  say  :    •  I  confess  that  I  have 
merited  death  and  hell,'  but  what  then  ?    Are  you  for  that 
reason  to  be  damned  eternally  ?     By  no  means.     *  I  know 
One  Who  suffered  and  made  satisfaction  for  me,  viz.  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God.    Where  He  is,  there  I  also  shall  be.'  " 
Fell  counsels  such  as  these,  to  despise  sin  and  to  meet  the 
temptation  by  sinning,  Luther  had  certainly  not  learnt  from 
the  spiritual  writers  of  the  past.     Such  writers,  more  par- 
kin July  (?),  1530  "  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.   159-161.     In  the  older 
reprints  the  letter  was  erroneously  put  at  a  later  date. 

2  "  Utinam  possem  aliquid  insigne  peccati  designare  modo  ad  eluden- 
dum  diabolum  !  "  "  Designare  "  may  mean  "  to  paint."  According  to 
Forcelli  it  also  sometimes  means  "  to  perform,"  "  to  do."  Cp.  Horace, 
"  Ep.,"  1,  5,  16  :  "  Quid  non  ebrietas  designate  and  Terence  "  Ad.," 
1,  2,  7  :    "  Quid  designavit  ?    Fores  eft 'regit. " 


176         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

ticularly  those  whom  he  professed  to  have  read  at  his 
monastery,  viz.  Bernard,  Bonaventure  and  Gerson,  teach 
that  sin  must  first  be  resisted,  after  which  we  may  then  seek 
prayerfully  for  the  cause  of  the  trouble  ;  for  this  is  not 
always  due  to  the  temptations  of  the  devil,  as  Luther 
unquestioningly  assumed  in  his  own  case  and,  consequently, 
also  in  that  of  Weller.  If  conscience  was  oppressed  by 
sin,  then,  according  to  these  spiritual  writers,  a  remedy 
different  from  that  suited  to  doubts  against  the  faith  must 
be  applied,  namely,  penance,  to  be  followed  by  acts  of  hope. 
If  the  trouble  in  Weller's  case  was  one  of  doubts  concerning 
faith,  anyone  but  Luther  would  have  been  careful  to  ascertain 
first  of  all  whether  these  doubts  referred  to  the  specifically 
Lutheran  doctrine  or  to  the  other  truths  of  the  Christian 
revelation.  Luther,  however,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
letter,  simply  declares  :  "  You  must  rest  assured  that  this 
temptation  comes  from  the  devil,  and  that  you  are  thus 
tortured  because  you  believe  in  Christ " — i.e.  in  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  and  in  the  Christ  preached  by  that  sect, 
as  is  clear  from  the  reference  immediately  following  to  the 
"  foes  of  the  Evangel,"  who  live  in  security  and  good  cheer. 

The  whole  letter,  though  addressed  to  one  standing  on  the 
brink  of  despair,  contains  not  a  single  word  about  prayer 
for  God's  help,  about  humbling  oneself  or  striving  after  a 
change  of  heart.  Beyond  the  above-mentioned  reference 
to  Christ,  Who  covers  over  all  our  sins,  and  to  the 
need  of  contemning  sin,  we  find  merely  the  following  natural, 
indeed,  of  the  earth  earthly,  remedies  recommended, 
viz. :  To  seek  company,  to  indulge  in  jest  and  play,  for 
instance,  with  Luther's  wife,  ever  to  keep  a  good  temper  and, 
finally,  "  to  drink  more  deeply."  "  If  the  devil  says,  '  Don't 
drink,'  answer  him  at  once  :  '  Just  because  you  don't  wish 
it,  I  shall  drink,  and  deeply  too.'  We  must  always  do  the 
opposite  of  what  the  devil  bids.  Why,  think  you,  do  I  drink 
so  much,  converse  so  freely  and  give  myself  up  so  frequently 
to  the  pleasures  of  the  table,  if  it  be  not  in  order  to  mock 
at  the  devil,  and  to  plague  him  when  he  tries  to  torment  and 
mock  at  me  ?  " 

Finally  he  encourages  the  sorely  tried  man  by  telling  him 
how  Staupitz  had  foretold  that  the  temptations  which  he, 
Luther,  endured  in  the  monastery  would  help  to  make  a 
great  man  of  him,  and  that  he  had  now,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 


REMEDIES  FOR  DEPRESSION      177 

become  a  "  great  doctor."  "You,  too,"  he  continues,  "  will 
become  a  great  man,  and  rest  assured  that  such  [prophetic] 
words,  particularly  those  that  fall  from  the  lips  of  great  and 
learned  men,  are  not  without  their  value  as  oracles  and  pre- 
dictions." 

It  is  not  surprising  that  such  counsels  and  the  consolation 
of  possible  future  greatness  did  not  improve  the  pitiable 
condition  of  the  unfortunate  man,  but  that  he  long  con- 
tinued to  suffer. 

Of  a  like  nature  is  the  advice  which  Luther  in  the  following 
year  gave  another  of  his  boarders  and  companions,  Johann 
Schlaginhaufen,  as  a  remedy  for  the  same  malady,  which  indeed 
seems  to  have  been  endemic  in  his  immediate  circle.  The  passages 
in  question,  from  Schlaginhaufen's  own  notes,  may  be  useful  in 
further  elucidating  Luther's  instructions  to  Weller. 

According  to  what  we  are  told  Luther  spoke  as  follows  to 
Schlaginhaufen  on  December  14,  1531,  at  a  time  when  the  latter 
had  been  reduced  to  despair  owing  to  his  sins  and  to  his  lack  of 
the  fiducial  faith  required  by  the  new  Evangel.  "  It  is  false  that 
God  hates  sinners  ;  if  the  devil  reminds  us  of  the  chastisement 
of  Sodom  and  other  instances  of  God's  wrath,  then  let  us  confront 
him  with  Christ,  Who  became  man  for  us.  Had  God  hated 
sinners  He  would  not.  have  sent  His  own  Son  for  us  [here  again 
not  the  slightest  allusion  to  any  effort  after  an  inward  change  of 
heart,  but  merely  what  follows]  :  Those  only  does  God  hate  who 
will  not  be  justified,  i.e.  those  who  will  not  be  sinners  ('  qui  non 
volunt  esse  peccatores  ,)."1 

In  these  admonitions  to  Schlaginhaufen  the  consolatory 
thought  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  which  alone  can  save  us,  occurs 
more  frequently,  though  in  a  very  Lutheran  guise  :  "  Why 
torment  yourself  so  much  about  sin  ?  Even  had  you  as  many 
sins  on  your  conscience  as  Zwingli,  Carlstadt,  Miinzer  and  all  the 
ungodly,  faith  in  Christ  would  overcome  them  all.  Alas,  faith  is 
all  that  lacks  us  !  "  If  the  devil  could  reproach  you  with  unbelief 
and  such-like  faults,  says  Luther,  then  it  would  be  a  different 
matter  ;  but  he  does  not  worry  us  about  the  great  sins  of  the  first 
table,  but  about  other  sins  ;  "he  annoys  us  with  mere  trifles ;  if 
we  would  consent  to  worship  the  Pope,  then  we  should  be  his 
dear  children."2  "We  must  cling  to  the  Man  Who  is  called 
Christ,  He  will  soon  put  right  whatever  we  may  have  done 
amiss."3 

"So  that  at  last  I  said,"  Schlaginhaufen  continues,  "Then, 
Doctor,  it  would  be  better  that  I  should  remain  a  rogue  and  a 
sinner.    And  the  Doctor  replied  :   That  Thou,  O  Lord,  mayst  be 

1  Those,  i.e.,  who  are  unwilling  to  feel  that  they  are  sinners.  Schla- 
ginhaufen, "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  9. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  20. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  88.    In  May,  1532.    Cp.  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  58,  p.  308. 

III. — N 


178         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

justified  in  Thy  words,  and  mayst  overcome  when  Thou  art 
judged"  (Ps.  1.  6).1 

With  this  pupil,  as  with  Weller,  Luther  enters  into  an  account 
of  his  own  temptations  and  the  means  he  employed  for  ridding 
himself  of  them. 

He  himself,  he  says,  in  December,  1531,  had  of  ten  been  made  a 
target  for  the  shafts  of  Satan.  "  About  ten  years  ago  I  first 
experienced  this  despair  and  these  temptations  concerning  the 
wrath  of  God.  Afterwards  I  had  some  peace  so  that  I  enjoyed 
good  days  and  even  took  a  wife,  but  then  the  temptations  re- 
turned again."2 

"  I  never  had  any  temptation  greater  or  more  burdensome 
than  that  which  assailed  me  on  account  of  my  preaching,  when  I 
thought  :  It  is  you  alone  who  are  bringing  all  this  business  about ; 
if  it  is  wrong,  then  you  alone  are  accountable  for  so  many  souls 
which  go  down  to  hell.  During  such  temptations  I  often  went 
right  down  to  hell,  only  that  God  called  me  back  and  strengthened 
me,  because  it  was  His  Word  and  true  doctrine.  But  it  costs 
much  before  one  can  arrive  at  such  comfort."3 

Here  also  he  speaks  of  his  remedy  of  a  free  indulgence  in  food 
and  drink  :  "  Were  I  to  give  in  to  my  want  of  appetite,  then  I 
should  [in  this  frame  of  mind]  for  three  days  eat  not  a  scrap  ;  it 
is  a  double  fast  to  me  to  eat  and  drink  without  the  least  inclina- 
tion. When  the  world  sees  this  it  looks  upon  it  as  drunkenness, 
but  God  shall  judge  whether  it  is  drunkenness  or  fasting  .  .  . 
therefore  keep  stomach  and  head  alike  filled."4 

According  to  another  communication  of  Luther's  to  this  pupil, 
he  was  in  the  habit  of  repelling  the  devil,  when  he  troubled  him 
too  much  about  his  sins,  by  cynical  speeches  on  the  subject  of  the 
evacuations.  After  one  such  statement  the  parish  priest  of 
Wittenberg,  the  apostate  Bugenhagen,  interrupted  him,  and, 
in  perfect  agreement  with  Luther,  said,  "  I  too  would  say  to  the 
devil  :  '  My  good  devil,  I  have  committed  a  great  sin,  for  Pope 
and  bishop  anointed  my  hands  and  I  have  defiled  them  ;  that  is 
also  a  great  sin.'  "5  From  such  coarse  speeches  Schlaginhaufen 
passes  on  to  relate  other  things  which  the  veracious  historian  is 
not  at  liberty  to  suppress.  The  anxious  pupil  who  was  seeking 
consolation  continues  :  "  The  Doctor  [Luther]  said  :  '  Never- 
theless, the  devil  was  unable  to  get  over  my  arguments.  Often 
have  I  called  my  wife,  et  cetera,  in  order  to  allay  the  temptation 
and  to  free  myself  from  such  idle  thoughts.'  "6 

What  Luther,  or  rather  Schlaginhaufen,  merely  hints  at, 
we  find  explained  in  greater  detail  in  the  diary  of  Luther's  pupil 
Conrad    Cordatus  :     "  Thoughts    of    terror    and    sadness    have 

1  Schlaginhaufen,  p.  88. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  9.  Here  and  in  what  follows,  according  to  Preger,  the  MS. 
notes  of  Veit  Dietrich  agree  with  Schlaginhaufen's  account. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  11.  4  Ibid. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  88  f.  "  Papst  und  Bischof  haben  mir  die  Hande  gesalbt, 
und  ich  habe  sie  beschissen  im  Dreck,  do  ich  den  Ars  wuschet." 

6  Ibid.,  p.  89 


REMEDIES  FOR  DEPRESSION      179 

worried  me  more  than  enemies  and  labours.  In  my  attempts 
to  drive  them  away  I  met  with  little  success.  I  also  tried 
caressing  my  wife  in  order  that  this  distraction  might  free  me 
from  the  suggestions  of  Satan  ;  but  in  temptations  such  as  these 
we  can  find  no  comfort,  so  greatly  is  our  nature  depraved.  It  is 
necessary,  however,  to  make  every  kind  of  effort  to  banish  these 
thoughts  by  some  stronger  emotion."1  One  of  the  chief  Latin 
versions  of  Luther's  Colloquies  gives  this  passage  in  his  "  Table- 
Talk  "  as  follows  :  "  How  often  have  I  taken  with  my  wife  those 
liberties  which  nature  permits  merely  in  order  to  get  rid  of 
Satan's  temptations.  Yet  all  to  no  purpose,  for  he  refused  to 
depart  ;  for  Satan,  as  the  author  of  death,  has  depraved  our 
nature  to  such  an  extent  that  we  will  not  admit  any  consolation. 
Hence  I  advise  everyone  who  is  able  to  drive  away  these  Satanic 
thoughts  by  diverting  his  mind,  to  do  so,  for  instance,  by  thinking 
of  a  pretty  girl,  of  money-making,  or  of  drink,  or,  in  fine,  by 
means  of  some  other  vivid  emotion.  The  chief  means,  however, 
is  to  think  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  He  comes  to  console  and  to  make 
alive."2  The  latter  passage  is  to  be  found,  with  unimportant 
alterations,  in  Rebenstock's  edition  of  the  Colloquies,  though, 
perhaps  out  of  consideration  for  Luther,  it  there  commences 
with  the  words  :  "  For  Satan  "  ;3  in  the  German  "Table-Talk" 
it  is  not  found  at  all. 4 

"  Let  us  fix  our  mind  on  other  thoughts,"  Luther  had  also  said 
to  Schlaginhaufen,  "  on  thoughts  of  dancing,  or  of  a  pretty  girl, 
that  also  is  good.  Gerson  too  wrote  of  this." 5  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
Gerson  certainly  wrote  nothing  about  getting  rid  of  temptations 
by  means  of  sensual  images.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  passages 
in  question  of  his  spiritual  writings,  he  teaches  something  quite 

1  "  Tagebuch  uber  M.  Luther,"  by  C.  Cordatus,  ed.  by  H.  Wrampel- 
meyer,  1883,  p.  450  :  "  Etiam  in  complexus  veni  coniugis,  ut  saltern  Me 
pruritus  auferret  Mas  cogitationes  satance.  .  .  .  Laborandum  est  omnibus 
modis,  ut  vehementiore  aliquo  affectu  pellantur" 

2  "Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  2,  p.  299.  The  Halle  MS.  on  which 
Bindseil  bases  his  work  really  depends  on  the  statements  of  Luther's 
pupil  Lauterbach.  Here  Luther's  words  run  :  "  Quoties  meant  uxorem 
complexus  sum,  nudam  contrectavi,  ut  tantum  sathance  cogitationes  Mo 
pruritu  pellerem.    But  all  to  no  purpose,  nolebat  cedere,"  etc. 

3  "  Colloquia,  meditationes,  consolationes,  etc.  M.  Lutheri," 
Francof.,  1571,  2,  p.  225'  (  =  125'). 

4  As  to  this,  Wrampelmeyer,  a  Protestant,  remarks  (p.  451)  in  his 
edition  of  Cordatus's  Diary,  mentioned  above  :  "  The  German  'Table- 
Talk,'  which  agrees  almost  entirely  with  the  Latin  version,  does  not,  in 
Erl.  ed.,  60,  p.  110,  and  Forstemann,  3,  p.  122,  contain  these  words,  but 
replaces  them  by  the  following  :  '  I  have  frequently  made  use  of 
various  means  in  order  to  drive  away  Satan,  but  it  was  of  no  use.' 
It  is  clear  that  words  so  compromising  gave  offence  and  that  others  were 
substituted  instead  of  those  given  in  the  Latin  text,  which  formed 
the  basis  of  the  German  '  Table-Talk.'  According  to  the  Notes  of  Corda- 
tus, however,  Luther's  words  appear  in  quite  a  different  light."  "  The 
words  of  the  Latin  '  Table-Talk ' :  '  utde  puella  pulchra,  avaritia,  ebrie- 
tate,''  have  also  been  replaced  in  the  German  version  by  more  harmless 
expressions." 

6  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  11. 


180         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

different  and  insists,  first  and  foremost,  on  the  avoidance  of  sin.  He 
proposes  our  doing  the  exact  opposite  of  the  wicked  or  unworthy 
acts  suggested  by  the  evil  spirit.  He,  like  all  Catholic  masters 
of  the  spiritual  life,  indeed  instructs  those  tempted  to  distract 
their  minds,  but  by  pious,  or  at  least,  indifferent  and  harm- 
less means.1 

2.   Some  of  Luther's  Practical  Principles  of  Life 

We  find  in  Luther  no  dearth  of  strong  expressions  which, 
like  his  advice  to  Weller  and  Schlaginhaufen,  seem  to 
discountenance  fear  of  sin,  penance  and  any  striving  after 
virtue.  It  remains  to  determine  from  their  context  the 
precise  meaning  which  he  attached  to  them. 

Luther  on  Sin 

As  early  as  1518  Luther,  in  a  sermon  at  Erfurt,  had  given 
vent  to  the  words  already  quoted  :  "  What  does  it  matter 
whether  we  commit  a  fresh  sin  so  long  as  we  do  not  despair 
but  repeat :  Thou,  my  God,  still  livest,  Christ,  my  Lord, 
has  destroyed  sin  ;  then  at  once  the  sin  is  gone.  .  .  .  The 
reason  why  the  world  is  so  out  of  joint  and  lies  in  such  error 
is  that  there  has  been  no  real  preacher  for  so  long."2 

"  Hence  we  say,"  so  later  on  we  read  in  his  exposition  of 
John  xvii.,  "  that  those  who  are  true  Saints  of  Christ  must 
be  great  sinners  and  yet  remain  Saints.  ...  Of  themselves, 
and  for  all  their  works,  they  are  nothing  but  sinners  and 
under  condemnation,  but  by  the  holiness  of  another,  viz. 
of  the  Lord  Christ,  bestowed  on  them  by  faith,  they  are 
made  holy."3 

And  further  :    "  The  Christian  faith  differs  greatly  from 

1  "  Opp.,"  Antwerpise,  1706,  3,  p.  242  seq. ;  p.  589  seq.  Aug.  Hardeland 
("  Gesch.  der  speziellen  Seelsorge  in  der  vorreformatorischen  Kirche 
und  der  Kirche  der  Reformation,"  Berlin,  1898,  p.  261)  remarks  : 
"  The  idea  that  we  must  always  do  the  exact  opposite  of  what  the 
devil  suggests,  is  the  leading  one  in  Gerson's  Tractate  '  De  remediis 
contra  pusillanimitatem.''  "  He  is  of  opinion  that,  in  advising  Weller  to 
sin,  Luther  was  "  using  this  maxim  of  Gerson's,  and  probably  only 
meant :  '  Do  not  be  afraid  to  do  what,  from  the  standpoint  of  your 
scrupulosity,  appears  to  be  sinful.'  "  Luther's  advice,  however,  was  not 
intended  for  a  scrupulous  person  predisposed  to  exaggeration  or  to 
narrowness  of  heart,  but  for  all  those  who  despaired  of  their  salvation  and 
were  unable  to  believe  in  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
and  in  his  assurance  of  salvation.  "  Cogitationes  immanissimoe" 
Luther  calls  Weller's  ideas,  "  quando  diabolus  reos  (nos)  egerit  mortis  et 
inferni.  .  .  .  In  ceternum  condemnaberis  ?  "  Weller,  the  disciple,  has 
first  to  learn  :    "  novi  quendam,  qui  passus  est  pro  me  ac  satisfecit"  etc. 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  162,  p.  254.  3  Ibid.,  50,  p.  248. 


NOVEL  CONCEPTION  OF  SIN       181 

the  faith  and  religion  of  the  Pope  and  the  Turks,  etc.,  for, 
by  it,  in  spite  of  his  consciousness  of  sin,  a  man,  amidst 
afflictions  and  the  fear  of  death,  continues  to  hope  that  God 
for  Christ's  sake  will  not  impute  to  him  his  sin.  .  .  .  But  so 
great  is  this  grace  that  a  man  is  startled  at  it  and  finds  it 
hard  to  believe."1 — He  himself  and  many  others  often  found 
it  difficult,  indeed  terribly  difficult,  to  believe.  They  were 
obliged  to  "  reassure  themselves  "  by  the  Word  of  God. 
A  few  more  quotations  may  here  be  added. 

44  To  be  clean  of  heart  not  only  means  not  to  harbour  any 
impure  thoughts,  but  that  the  conscience  has  been  enlight- 
ened and  assured  by  the  Word  of  God  that  the  law  does 
not  defile ;  hence  the  Christian  must  understand 
that  -  it  does  not  harm  him  whether  he  keeps  it  [the 
law]  or  not ;  nay,  he  may  even  do  what  is  otherwise  for- 
bidden, or  leave  undone  what  is  usually  commanded  ;  it  is 
no  sin  in  him,  for  he  is  incapable  of  sinning  because  his  heart 
is  clean.  On  the  other  hand,  an  impure  heart  defiles  itself 
and  sins  in  everything  because  it  is  choked  with  law."2 

"  God  says  in  the  law  :  Do  this,  leave  that  undone,  this 
do  I  require  of  thee.  But  the  Evangel  does  not  preach  what 
we  are  to  do  or  to  leave  undone,  it  requires  nothing  of  us. 
On  the  contrary.  It  does  not  say  :  Do  this  or  that, 
but  only  tells  us  to  hold  out  our  hands  and  take  :  Behold,  O 
man,  what  God  has  done  for  thee  ;  He  has  caused  His 
own  Son  to  take  flesh  for  thee,  has  allowed  Him  to  be  done 
to  death  for  thy  sake,  and  to  save  thee  from  sin,  death  and 
the  devil ;  believe  this  and  accept  it  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved."3 

Such  statements,  which  must  not  be  regarded  as  spoken 
merely  on  the  spur  of  the  moment,  rest  on  the  idea  that  sin 
only  troubles  the  man  who  looks  to  the  law ;  let  us  look 
rather  to  the  Gospel,  which  is  nothing  but  grace,  and  simply 
cover  over  our  sin  by  a  firm  faith  in  Christ,  then  it  will  not 
harm  us  in  any  way.  Yet  it  would  be  quite  a  mistake  to 
infer  from  this  that  Luther  always  regarded  sin  with  in- 
difference, or  that  he  even  recommended  it  on  principle  ; 
as  a  rule  he  did  not  go  so  far  as  we  just  saw  him  do  (p.  175  ff .) 
in  his  exhortations  to  persons  tempted ;  there,  moreover,  his 
invitation  to  commit  sin,  and  his  other  misplaced  instructions, 

1  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  58,  p.  360.  2  Ibid.,  51,  p.  284. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  16,  p.  367  ;   Erl.  ed.,  33,  p.  5. 


182         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

may  possibly  be  explained  by  the  excitement  of  the  hand-to- 
hand  struggle  with  the  devil,  in  which  he  fancied  himself 
to  be  engaged  whenever  he  had  to  do  with  doubts  concern- 
ing his  doctrines,  or  with  souls  showing  signs  of  halting  or 
of  despair.  On  the  contrary,  he  teaches,  as  a  rule,  that  sin 
is  reprehensible  ;  he  also  instructs  man  to  fight  against 
concupiscence  which  leads  up  to  it.  (Vol.  i.,  p  114  f.) 
He  is  fond  of  exhorting  to  amendment  of  life  and  to  avoid 
any  scandal.  Still,  the  barriers  admitted  by  his  doctrine  of 
Justification  against  this  indifference  with  regard  to  sin 
were  not  strong  enough.1 

As  to  Luther's  teaching  on  the  manner  in  which  sin  was 
forgiven,  we  shall  merely  state  his  ideas  on  this  subject, 
without  attempting  to  bring  them  into  harmony ;  the  fact 
is  that,  in  Luther's  case,  we  must  resign  ourselves  to  a 
certain  want  of  sequence. 

He  teaches  :  "  Real  faith  is  incompatible  with  any  sin  what- 
soever ;  whoever  is  a  believer  must  resist  sinful  lusts  by  the 
power  and  the  impulse  of  the  faith  and  Spirit."2  "  Whoever  has 
faith  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins  does  not  obey  sinful  lusts,  but 
rights  against  them  until  he  is  rid  of  them."3  Where  mortal  sin 
has  been  committed,  there,  according  to  him,  real  faith  was 
manifestly  lacking  ;  it  had  already  been  denied  and  was  no 
longer  active,  or  even  present.  A  revival  of  faith,  together  with 
the  necessary  qualities  of  confidence,  covers  over  all  such  sins, 
including  the  sin  of  unbelief.  On  the  other  hand,  sins  committed 
where  faith  was  present,  though  for  the  moment  too  weak  to  offer 
resistance,  were  sins  of  frailty ;  there  faith  at  once  regains  the 
upper  hand  and  thus  forgiveness  or  non-imputation  of  the  sin  is 
secured.  The  denial  of  Peter  was,  according  to  Luther,  a  sin  of 
frailty,  because  it  was  merely  due  to  "  chance  weakness  and 
foolishness."  Nevertheless  he  declares  that,  like  the  treason  of 
Judas,  it  was  deserving  of  death.4 

Luther  teaches  further,  affording  us  incidentally  an  insight 
into  the  inadequacy  of  his  doctrine  from  another  point  of  view, 
that,  in  the  case  of  the  heathen  or  of  Christians  who  had  no  faith, 
not  only  was  every  sin  a  mortal  sin,  but  also  all  works,  even 
good  works,  were  mortal  sins  ;  indeed,  they  would  be  so  even  in 
the  faithful,  were  it  not  for  Christ,  the  Redeemer,  Whom  we 
must  cling  to  with  confidence.  Moreover,  as  we  know,  man's 
evil  inclinations,  the  motions  of  concupiscence,  the  bad  tendencies 

1  Cp.  vol.  iv.,  xxviii.  3  and  4.  Luther's  famous  "  pecca  for  titer  "  is 
discussed  at  length  below  (p.  199  ff.),  and  all  that  might  tend  to  explain 
the  words  is  passed  in  review. 

2  See  J.  Kostlin,  "  Luthers  Theologie,"  22,  1901,  p.  215. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  50,  p.  58. 

*  Cp.  passages  quoted  by  Kostlin,  ibid. 


NOVEL  CONCEPTION   OF  SIN       183 

of  the  pious,  were  all  grievous  sins  in  Luther's  eyes  ;  original  sin 
with  its  involuntary  effects  he  considers  an  enduring  offence  ; 
only  faith,  which  merits  forgiveness  and  overcomes  the  terrors 
of  conscience  by  the  saving  knowledge  of  Christ,  can  ensure  man 
against  it,  and  the  other  sins. 

"  Thus  our  salvation  or  rejection  depends  entirely  on  whether 
we  believe  or  do  not  believe  in  Christ.  .  .  .  Unbelief  retains  all 
sin,  so  that  it  cannot  be  forgiven,  just  as  faith  cancels  all  sin  ; 
hence  outside  of  such  faith  everything  is  and  remains  sinful  and 
worthy  of  damnation,  even  the  best  of  lives,  and  the  best  of 
works.  ...  In  faith  a  Christian's  life  and  works  are  pleasing  to 
God,  outside  of  Christ  everything  is  lost  and  doomed  to  perdition  ; 
in  Christ  all  is  good  and  blessed,  so  that  even  the  sin  which  flesh 
and  blood  inherits  from  Adam  is  neither  a  cause  of  harm  nor  of 
condemnation."  "  This,  however,  is  not  to  be  understood  as  a 
permit  to  sin  and  to  commit  evil ;  for  since  faith  brings  forgive- 
ness of  sin  ...  it  is  impossible  that  he  who  lives  openly  un- 
repentant and  secure  in  his  sins  and  lusts  should  be  a  Christian 
and  a  believer."1  In  conclusion  he  explains  to  what  category  of 
hearers  he  is  speaking  :  "  To  them  [the  faithful]  this  is  said,  in 
order  that  sin  may  not  harm  nor  condemn  them ;  to  the  others, 
who  are  without  faith  and  reprobate,  we  do  not  preach."2 
Amongst  the  numerous  other  questions  which  here  force  them- 
selves upon  us,  one  is,  why  Luther  did  not  address  his  Evangel 
to  those  "  without  faith,"  and  to  the  "  reprobate,"  according  to 
the  example  of  Christ.3 

The  fanatics,  particularly  Carlstadt,  were  not  slow  in  attacking 
Luther  on  account  of  his  doctrine  of  faith  alone.  Carlstadt 
described  this  "  faith  "  of  Luther's  as  a  "  paper  faith  "  and  a 
"  heartless  faith."  He  perceived  the  "  dangers  to  the  interior 
life  which  might  arise  from  the  stress  laid  on  faith  alone,  viz.  the 
enfeebling  of  the  moral  powers  and  the  growth  of  formalism."4 
The  modern  Protestant  biographer  of  Carlstadt,  from  whom 
these  words  are  taken,  points  out  that  "  moral  laxity  too  often 
went  hand-in-hand  with  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  forgiveness  of 
sins."  5  "  Owing  to  an  assiduous  depreciation  of  the  moral  code  no 
criterion  existed  according  to  which  the  direction  of  the  impulses 
of  the  will  could  be  determined,  according  to  Luther's  doctrine  of 
Justification."6  The  Lutheran  teaching  was  "  admirably  adapted 
to  suit  the  life  of  the  individual,"  but  the  moral  laxity  which 
followed  in  its  train  "  could  not  be  considered  as  merely  an 
exceptional  phenomenon."7  There  is  no  doubt  that  "  much 
dross  came  to  the  surface  when  '  faith  only  '  was  applied  to  the 
forgiveness  of  sins."8 

A  Protestant  theologian,  A.  Hegler,  one  of  those  who  demur 
to  Luther's  doctrines,  mentioned  above,  owing  to  their  moral  con- 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  50,  p.  58. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  59.  3  See  above,  p.  26. 

4  H.  Barge,  "  Andreas  Bodenstein  von  Karlstadt,"  2,  1905,  p.  73. 
6  Ibid.,  2,  p.  156.  6  Ibid.,  p.  292. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  430.  8  Ibid,.  1,  p.  213. 


184         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

sequences,  remarks  :  "It  remains  that  the  idea  of  justification 
without  works  was,  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  often  found 
side  by  side  with  moral  laxity,  and  that,  sometimes,  the  latter  was 
actually  the  effect  of  the  former."  Seeking  the  reason  why  so 
talented  a  man  as  Sebastian  Franck  should  have  seceded,  after 
having  been  a  Lutheran  preacher  till  1528,  he  remarks  :  "  There 
is  much  to  lead  us  to  suppose  that  the  sight  of  the  moral  in- 
difference and  coarseness  of  the  evangelicals  was  the  determining 
factor."1 

After  having  considered  Luther's  principles  with  regard 
to  the  theory  of  sin,  we  now  proceed  to  give  some  of  his 
utterances  on  penance. 

Luther's  Views  on  Penance 

Although  he  speaks  of  repentance  as  the  first  step  towards 
salvation  in  the  case  of  the  sinner,  yet  the  idea  of  repentance, 
remorse  or  contrition  was  ever  rather  foreign  to  him.  He 
will  not  admit  as  valid  any  repentance  aroused  by  the 
demands  and  menaces  of  the  law  ;2  in  the  case  of  man, 
devoid  of  free  will,  it  must  be  a  result  of  Divine  charity  and 
grace  ;  repentance  without  a  love  of  justice  is,  he  says, 
at  secret  enmity  with  God  and  only  makes  the  sin  greater.3 
Yet  he  also  declares,  not  indeed  as  advocating  penance  as 
such,  that  it  merely  acts  through  faith  "  previous  to  and 
independently  of  all  works,"  of  which,  as  we  know,  he  was 
always  suspicious  ;  all  that  was  needed  was  to  believe  "  in 
God's  Mercy,"  and  repentance  was  already  there.4 

He  is  nevertheless  in  favour  of  the  preachers  exhorting 
Christians  to  repentance  by  diligent  reference  to  the  com- 
mandments, and  to  the  chastisements  threatened  by  God, 
so  as  to  instil  into  them  a  salutary  fear.  The  law,  he  goes  on 
to  say,  in  contradiction  to  the  above,  must  do  its  work,  and 
by  means  of  its  terrors  drive  men  to  repentance  even  though 
love  should  have  no  part  in  it.  Here  he  is  perfectly  conscious 
of  the  objection  which  might  be  raised,  viz.  that  he  had  made 
"  repentance  to  proceed  from,  and  to  be  the  result  of,  justify- 
ing faith."  To  this  he  replies,  that  repentance  itself  forms 
part  of  the  "  common  faith,"  because  it  is  first  necessary  to 

1  "  Geist  und  Schrift  bei  Sebastian  Franck,"  Freiburg,  1892,  p.  24  f. 

2  Kostlin,  "  Luthers  Theologie,"  l2,  p.  188.  Luther  does  not  admit 
the  "  timor  servilis  "  of  Catholic  theology,  and  in  his  arbitrary  fashion  he 
represents  it  as  equivalent  to  mere  "fear  of  the  gallows,"  "timor 
8erviliter  servilis. "  3  Ibid.,  p.  190. 

*  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  2,  p.  506  ;  Erl.  ed.,  31,  p.  181. 


PENANCE  185 

believe  that  there  is  a  God  Who  commands  and  makes 
afraid  ;  this  circumstance  justifies  the  retention  of  penance, 
"  for  the  sake  of  the  common,  unlearned  folk."1 

The  Catholic  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  formulates  her  doctrine 
of  penance  and  regeneration,  for  the  most  cultured  as  well  as 
for  the  "  common  and  unlearned,"  in  terms  simple  and  com- 
prehensible, and  in  perfect  accord  with  both  Scripture  and 
theology :  Adults  "  are  prepared  for  justification,  when,  moved 
and  assisted  by  Divine  grace  .  .  .  they,  of  their  free  will,  turn 
to  God,  believing  that  those  things  are  true  which  have  been 
Divinely  revealed  and  promised  ;  above  all,  that  the  ungodly  is 
justified  by  God's  grace  and  by  the  redemption  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus  ;  recognising  with  a  wholesome  fear  of  the  Divine 
Justice  their  sinfulness,  they  turn  to  God's  mercy,  and,  being  thus 
established  in  hope,  gain  the  confidence  that  God,  for  Christ's 
sake,  will  be  gracious  to  them.  Thus  they  begin  to  love  God  as 
the  source  of  all  justice  and  to  conceive  a  certain  hatred  ('  odium 
aliquod  ')  and  detestation  for  sin,  i.e.  to  perform  that  penance 
which  must  take  place  previous  to  baptism.  Finally,  they  must 
have  the  intention  of  receiving  baptism,  of  commencing  a  new 
life  and  of  observing  the  commandments  of  God."2  "Those 
who,  after  having  received  the  grace  of  justification,  fall  into  sin 
['  without  loss  of  faith  '],3  with  God's  help  may  again  be  justified, 
regaining  through  the  Sacrament  of  Penance  and  Christ's  merits 
the  grace  they  had  lost.  .  .  .  Christ  Jesus  instituted  the  Sacra- 
ment of  Penance  when  He  said  :  '  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost : 
whose  sins  ye  shall  forgive,  they  are  forgiven  them  ;  and  whose 
sins  ye  shall  retain,  they  are  retained.'  Hence  we  must  teach 
that  the  repentance  of  a  sinner  after  falling  into  sin  is  very 
different  from  that  which  accompanies  baptism,  and  involves 
not  merely  a  turning  away  from,  and  a  detestation  for,  sin,  or 
a  contrite  and  humble  heart,  but  also  a  Sacramental  confession 
of  the  sin,  or  at  least  a  purpose  of  making  such  a  confession  in 
due  season,  and  receiving  the  priestly  absolution  ;  finally,  it 
involves  satisfaction  by  fasting,  almsdeeds,  prayer  and  other 
pious  exercises."4 

Such,  according  to  the  Catholic  doctrine,  is  the  process 
approved  of  by  Holy  Scripture,  the  various  phases  of  which 
rest  alike  on  religion  and  psychology,  on  the  positive 
ordinances  of  God  and  on  human  nature.  Luther,  however, 
thrust  all  this  aside  ;  his  quest  was  for  a  simpler  and  easier 
method,  through  faith  alone,  by  which  sin  may  be  vanquished 
or  covered  over. 

His  moral  character,  so  far  as  it  reveals  itself  in  his  teach- 

1  Kostlin,  ibid.,  p.  189. 

2  Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  VI. ,  "  decretum  de  iustificatione,"  c.  6. 

3  Ibid.,  c.  15.  4  Ibid.,  c.  14. 


186         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

ing,  is  here  displayed  in  an  unfavourable  light,  for  he  is  never 
weary  of  emphasising  the  ease  with  which  sin  can  be  covered 
over — and  that  in  language  which  must  'necessarily  have 
had  a  bad  effect  on  discipline — when  we  might  have  expected 
to  hear  some  earnest  words  on  penance.  A  few  of  his  sayings 
will  help  to  make  yet  clearer  his  earlier  statements. 

"You  see  how  rich  the  Christian  is,"  he  says,  "since,  even 
should  he  desire  it,  he  is  unable  to  forfeit  his  salvation,  no  matter 
how  many  sins  he  may  commit,  unless  indeed  he  refuses  to  believe 
('  nisi  nolit  credere  ').  No  sin  but  unbelief  can  bring  him  to 
damnation  ;  everything  else  is  at  once  swept  away  by  this  faith, 
so  soon  as  he  returns  to  it,  or  recollects  the  Divine  promise  made 
to  the  baptised."1 

"  Christ's  Evangel  is  indeed  a  mighty  thing.  .  .  .  God's  Word 
brings  everything  to  pass  speedily,  bestows  forgiveness  of  sins 
and  the  gift  of  eternal  life  ;  and  the  cost  of  this  is  merely  that 
you  should  hear  the  Word,  and  after  hearing  it  believe.  If  you 
believe,  then  you  possess  it  without  any  trouble,  expense,  delay 
or  difficulty."2 

"  No  other  sin  exists  in  the  world  save  unbelief.  All  others 
are  mere  trifles,  as  when  my  little  Hans  or  Lena  misbehave  them- 
selves in  the  corner,  for  we  all  take  that  as  a  big  joke.  In  the 
same  way  faith  covers  the  stench  of  our  filth  before  God.  .  .  . 
All  sins  shall  be  forgiven  us  if  only  we  believe  in  the  Son."3 

"  As  I  have  often  said,  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  is  nothing  else 
but  forgiveness  and  perpetual  blotting  out  of  sin,  which  is  extin- 
guished, covered  over,  swept  away  and  made  clean  while  we  are 
living  here."  "  Christ  makes  things  so  easy  for  us  who  stand 
before  God  in  fear  and  trembling."4 

"  Summa  summarum  :  Our  life  is  one  long  '  remissio  peccatorwn,' 
and  forgiveness  of  sin,  otherwise  it  could  not  endure."6 

Here,  indeed,  we  have  one  of  the  main  props  of  Luther's 
practical  theology.  To  this  the  originator  of  the  doctrine  sought 
to  remain  faithful  to  the  very  end  of  his  life,  whereas  certain 
other  points  of  his  teaching  he  was  not  unwilling  to  revise.  His 
ideas  on  sin  and  repentance  had  sprung  originally  from  his  desire 
to  relieve  his  own  conscience,6  and,  of  this,  they  ever  retained 
the  mark.  The  words  and  doctrine  of  a  teacher  are  the  best 
witnesses  we  have  to  his  moral  character,  and  here  the  doctrine 
is  one  which  affords  but  little  stimulus  to  virtue  and  Christian 
perfection,  but  rather  the  reverse. 

In  what  follows  we  shall  consider  more  closely  the  relation 

I1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  529  ;  "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  5,  p.  59,  in  the 
work  "  De  captivitate  babylonicd." 

,2  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  157,  in  the  "  Hauspostille." 
k3  Ibid.,  4,  p.  131,  "  Hauspostille."     Cp.  Weim.  ed.,  36,  p.  187.. 
[4  Ibid.,  p.  132,  "Hauspostille." 
6  Ibid.,  62,  p.  267,  "  Tischreden."  6  Cp.  vol.  i.,  p.  289  ff. 


ON  HUMAN  EFFORTS  187 

between  this  doctrine  and  the  effort  after  virtue,  while  at 
the  same  time  taking  into  account  that  passivity,  nay, 
entire  unfreedom  of  the  will  for  doing  what  is  good,  pro- 
claimed by  Luther. 

Luther  on  Efforts  after  Higher  Virtue 

The  effort  to  attain  perfection  and  to  become  like  to 
Christ,  which  is  the  highest  aim  of  the  Christian,  is  scarcely 
promoted  by  making  the  whole  Gospel  to  consist  merely 
in  the  happy  enjoyment  of  forgiveness.  The  hard  work 
required  for  the  building  up  of  a  truly  virtuous  life  on  the 
rude  soil  of  the  world,  necessarily  involving  sacrifice,  self- 
denial,  humiliation  and  cheerful  endurance  of  suffering,  was 
more  likely  to  be  looked  at  askance  and  carefully  avoided 
by  those  who  clung  to  such  a  view. 

On  the  pretext  of  opposing  the  "  false  humility  of  the 
holy-by-works,"  Luther  attacks  many  practices  which  have 
always  been  dear  to  pious  souls  striving  after  God.  At  the 
same  time  he  unjustly  implies  that  the  Catholics  made 
holiness  to  consist  merely  in  extraordinary  works,  per- 
formed, moreover,  by  human  strength  alone,  without  the 
assistance  of  grace.  "  This  all  comes  from  the  same  old 
craze,"  he  declares  ;x  "as  soon  as  we  hear  of  holiness  we 
immediately  think  of  great  and  excellent  works  and  stand 
gaping  at  the  Saints  in  heaven  as  though  they  had  got  there 
by  their  own  merits.  What  we  say  is  that  the  Saints  must 
be  good,  downright  sinners."  (See  above,  p.  180.)  "  The 
most  holy  state  is  that  of  those  who  believe  that  Christ 
alone  is  our  holiness,  and  that  by  virtue  of  His  holiness,  as 
already  stated,  everything  about  us,  our  life  and  actions,  are 
holy,  just  as  the  person  too  is  holy."2 

After  this,  who  can  contend  that  Luther  sets  before  the 
world  the  sublime  and  arduous  ideal  of  a  life  of  virtue  such 
as  has  ever  been  cherished  by  souls  inflamed  with  the  love 
of  Christ  ?  To  rest  content  with  a  standard  so  low  is  indeed 
to  clip  the  wings  of  virtue.  This  is  in  no  way  compensated 
for  by  Luther's  fervent  exhortations  to  the  Christian,  "  to 
confess  the  Word,  more  particularly  in  temptation  and 
persecution,"  because  true  and  exalted  virtue  was  present 
wherever  there  was  conflict  on  behalf  of  the  Word  [as 
preached  by  him],  or  by  his  asseveration,  that  "  where  the 
1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  50,  p.  248.  2  Ibid. 


188         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

Word  is  and  brings  forth  fruit  so  that  men  are  willing  to 
suffer  what  must  be  suffered  for  it,  there  indeed  we  have 
living  Saints."  Living  Saints  ?  Surely  canonisation  is 
here  granted  all  too  easily.  Nor  does  Luther  make  good  the 
deficiencies  of  his  teaching,  by  depriving  good  works  of  any 
merit  for  heaven,  or  by  requiring  that  they  should  be  per- 
formed purely  out  of  love  of  God,  without  the  least  thought 
of  reward.  He  thereby  robs  the  practice  of  good  works  of 
a  powerful  stimulus,  as  much  in  conformity  with  the  Will 
of  God  as  with  human  nature.  He  is  too  ready  here  to 
assume  that  the  faithful  are  angels,  raised  above  all  incentive 
arising  from  the  hope  of  reward,  though,  elsewhere,  he  looks 
upon  men  only  too  much  as  of  the  earth  earthly. 

At  any  rate  he  teaches  that  good  works  spring  spon- 
taneously from  the  faith  by  which  man  is  justified,  and  that 
the  outcome  is  a  life  of  grace  in  which  the  faithful  has  every 
incentive  to  the  performance  of  his  duty  and  to  works  of 
charity  towards  his  neighbour.  He  also  knows  how  to 
depict  such  spontaneous,  practical  efforts  on  the  part  of  the 
righteous  in  attractive  colours  and  with  great  feeling. 
Passages  of  striking  beauty  have  already  been  quoted  above 
from  his  writings.  Too  often,  as  he  himself  complains,  such 
good  works  are  conspicuous  by  their  absence  among  the 
followers  of  the  evangelical  faith  ;  he  is  disappointed  to  see 
that  the  new  teaching  on  faith  serves  only  to  engender  lazy 
hearts.  Yet  this  was  but  natural ;  nature  cannot  be  over- 
come even  in  the  man  who  is  justified  without  an  effort  on 
his  part ;  without  exertion,  self-sacrifice,  self-conquest  and 
prayer  no  one  can  make  any  progress  and  become  better 
pleasing  to  God  ;  not  holiness-by-works,  but  the  sanctifying 
of  our  works,  is  the  point  to  be  aimed  at,  and,  for  this  purpose, 
Holy  Scripture  recommends  no  mere  presumptuous,  fiducial 
faith  as  the  starting-point,  but  rather  a  pious  fear  of  God, 
combined  with  a  holy  life  ;  no  mere  reliance  on  a  mis- 
apprehension of  the  freedom  of  the  children  of  God,  but 
rather  severe  self-discipline,  watchfulness  and  mortification 
of  the  whole  man,  who,  freely  and  of  his  own  accord,  must 
make  himself  the  image  of  his  crucified  Saviour.  Those  of 
Luther's  followers  who,  to  their  honour,  succeeded  in  so 
doing,  did  so,  and  were  cheered  and  comforted,  not  by 
following  their  leader's  teaching,  but  by  the  grace  of  God 
which  assists  every  man. 


ON  HUMAN  EFFORTS  189 

We  must,  however,  refer  to  another  point  of  importance 
already  once  discussed.  Why  speak  at  all  of  good  works 
and  virtue,  when  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  passivity  and 
unfreedom  of  the  will  denies  the  existence  of  all  liberty  as 
regards  either  virtue  or  sin  ?    (See  vol.  ii.,  p.  223  ff.) 

Luther's  doctrine  of  Justifying  Faith  is  closely  bound 
up  with  his  theories  on  the  absence  of  free  will,  man's 
inability  to  what  do  is  good,  and  the  total  depravity  of 
human  nature  resulting  from  original  sin.  In  his  "  De  servo 
arbitrio  "  against  Erasmus,  Luther  deliberately  makes  the 
absence  of  free  will  the  basis  of  his  view  of  life. 

Deprived  of  any  power  of  choice  or  self-determination, 
man  is  at  the  mercy  of  external  agents,  diabolical  or  Divine, 
to  such  an  extent  that  he  is  unable  to  will  except  what  they 
will.  Whoever  has  and  keeps  the  Spirit  of  God  and  the 
faith  cannot  do  otherwise  than  fulfil  the  Will  of  God  ;  but 
whoever  is  under  the  domination  of  the  devil  is  his  spiritual 
captive.  To  sum  up  what  was  said  previously :  man 
retains  at  most  the  right  to  dispose  of  things  inferior  to  him, 
not,  however,  any  actual,  moral  freedom  of  choice,  still  less 
any  liberty  for  doing  what  is  good  such  as  would  exclude  all 
interior  compulsion.  He  is  created  for  eternal  death  or  for 
everlasting  life  ;  his  destiny  he  cannot  escape  ;  his  lot  is 
already  pre-ordained.  Luther's  doctrine  brings  him  into 
line,  even  as  regards  the  "  harshest  consequences  of  the 
predestinarian  dogma,  with  Zwingli,  Calvin,  and  Melanchthon 
in  his  earliest  evangelical  Theology."1  According  to  one  of 
the  most  esteemed  of  Lutheran  theologians,  "  what  finds 
full  and  comprehensive  expression  in  the  work  '  De  servo 
arbitrio '  is  simply  the  conviction  which  had  inspired 
Luther  throughout  his  struggle  for  his  pet  doctrine  of  salva- 
tion, viz.  the  doctrine  of  the  pure  grace  of  God  as  against 
the  prevailing  doctrine  of  free  will  and  man's  own  works."2 
According  to  this  theory,  in  spite  of  the  lack  of  free  will, 
God  requires  of  man  that  he  should  keep  the  moral  law, 
and,  to  encourage  him,  sets  up  a  system  of  rewards  and 
punishments.  Man  is  constrained  to  this  as  it  were  in 
mockery,  that,  as  Luther  says,  God  may  make  him  to  realise 
his  utter  powerlessness.3    God  indeed  deplores  the  spiritual 

l  J  *  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  664.     Cp.  Kostlin,  "  Luthers  Theologie," 
l2,  p.  370.  2  Kostlin,  ibid.,  p.  369. 

|  3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  18,  p.  691  ff.  ;    "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  7,  p.  231 
seq.,  "  De  servo  arbitrio" 


190         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

ruin  of  His  people — this  much  the  author  is  willing  to  allow 
to  his  opponent  Erasmus — but,  the  God  Who  does  so  is  the 
God  of  revelation,  not  the  Hidden  God.  "  The  God  Who 
conceals  Himself  beneath  His  Majesty  grieves  not  at  man's 
undoing,  He  takes  no  step  to  remedy  it,  but  works  all  things, 
both  life  and  death."  God,  "  by  that  unsearchable  know- 
ledge of  His,  wills  the  death  of  the  sinner."1 

"  Even  though  Judas  acted  of  his  own  will  and  without 
compulsion,  still  his  willing  was  the  work  of  God,  Who  moved 
him  by  His  Omnipotence  as  He  moves  all  things."2  In  the 
same  way,  according  to  Luther,  the  hardening  of  Pharao's 
heart  was  in  the  fullest  sense  God's  work.3  Adam's  sin 
likewise  is  to  be  traced  back  to  the  Will  of  God.4  We  must 
not  ask,  however,  how  all  this  can  be  reconciled  with  the 
goodness  and  justice  of  God.  AVe  must  not  expect  God  to  act 
according  to  human  law.5 

It  was  necessary  to  recall  the  above  in  order  to  show  how 
such  a  doctrine  robs  the  moral  law  of  every  inward  relation 
to  its  last  end,  and  degrades  it  till  it  becomes  a  mere  outward, 
arbitrary  barrier.  Luther  may  well  thank  his  want  of  logic 
that  this  system  failed  to  be  carried  to  its  extremest  con- 
sequences ;  the  ways  of  the  world  are  not  those  of  the 
logician. 

WTio  but  God  can  be  held  responsible  in  the  last  instance 
for  the  world  being,  as  Luther  complains,  the  "  dwelling- 
place  "  of  the  devil,  and  his  very  kingdom  ?  According  to 
him  the  devil  is  its  "Prince  and  God";6  every  place  is 
packed  with  devils.7  Indeed,  "  the  whole  world  is  Satanic 
and  to  a  certain  extent  identified  with  Satan."  8  "In  such  a 
kingdom  all  the  children  of  Adam  are  subject  to  their  lord 
and  king,  i.e.  the  devil." 9  Such  descriptions  given  by 
Luther  are  often  so  vivid  that  one  might  fancy  the  devil 

1  Kostlin,  ibid.,  p.  359. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  18,  p.  715  ;  "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  7,  p.  263, 
"  De  servo  arbitrio." 

3  Ibid., p.  711  =p.  258.  4  Cp.  Kostlin,  ibid.,  p.  355. 

5  Kostlin,  ibid.,  p.  359.  Kostlin  admits  the  "  questionable  character  " 
of  the  doctrine,  though  in  rather  mild  language,  e.g.  p.  370. 

6  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  20,  l2,  p.  163. 

7  "  Prussia  est  plena  dcemonibus"  etc.  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch," 
p.  65. 

i  "  The  devil  is  in  the  world,  vel  potius  ipse  mundus  concretive  vel 
abstractive."  Letter  of  January  3,  1534,  to  Amsdorf,  "  Brief wechsel," 
9,  p.  376. 

9  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  20,  l2,  p.  163. 


SAINTLY  FRAILTY  191 

was  making  war  upon  God  almost  like  some  independent 
power.  Luther,  however,  admits  that  the  devil  has  "  only 
a  semblance  of  the  Godhead,  and  that  God  has  reserved 
to  Himself  the  true  Godhead."1  Ethically  the  consequence 
of  such  a  view  of  the  world  is  a  pessimism  calculated  to 
lame  both  the  powers  and  the  desires  of  anyone  striving 
after  higher  aims. 

Luther's  pessimism  goes  so  far,  that  too  often  he  is  ready  to 
believe  that,  unlike  the  devil,  Christ  loves  "  to  show  Him- 
self weak  "  in  man.  He  writes,  for  instance,  that  Satan 
desired  to  drag  him  in  his  toils  down  into  the  abyss,  but  that 
the  "  weak  Christ  "  was  ever  victorious,  or  at  least  "  fight- 
ing bravely."2  That  it  was  possible  for  Christ  to  be  over- 
come he  would  not  have  allowed,  yet,  surely,  an  excuse 
might  have  been  sought  for" man's  failings  in  Christ's  own 
"  weakness,"  particularly  if  man  is  really  devoid  of  free  will 
for  doing  what  is  good. 

Luther  was  always  fond  of  imputing  weaknesses  and  sins 
to  the  Saints.  Their  works  he  regarded  as  detracting  from 
the  Redemption  and  the  Grace  of  Christ,  which  can  be 
appropriated  only  by  faith.  Certain  virtues  manifested  by 
the  Saints  and  their  heroic  sacrifices  Luther  denounced  as 
illusions,  as  morally  impossible  and  as  mere  idolatry. 

"  The  Apostles  themselves  were  sinners,  yea,  regular  scoundrels. 
...  I  believe  that  the  prophets  also  frequently  sinned  grievously, 
for  they  were  men  like  us."3  He  quotes  examples  from  the 
history  of  the  Apostles  previous  to  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Elsewhere  he  alludes  to  the  failings  they  betrayed  even  in  later  life. 
"  To  hear  "  that  the  Apostles,  even  after  they  had  received  the 
Holy  Ghost,  were  "  sometimes  weak  in  the  faith,"  is,  he  says, 
"  very  consoling  to  me  and  to  all  Christians."  Peter  "  not  only 
erred  "  in  his  treatment  of  the  Gentile  Christians  (Gal.  ii.  11  ff.), 
"  but  sinned  grossly  and  grievously."  The  separation  of  Paul 
and  Barnabas  (Acts  xv.  39)  was  very  blameworthy.  "  Such 
instances,"  he  says,  "  are  placed  before  us  for  our  comfort  ;  for 
it  is  very  consoling  to  hear  that  such  great  Saints  have  also 
sinned."  "  Samson,  David  and  many  other  fine  and  mighty 
characters,  filled  as  they  were  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  fell  into 
great  sins,"  which  is  a  "  splendid  consolation  to  faint-hearted 
and   troubled   consciences."      Paul   himself   did   not   believe   as 

1  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  65. 

2  To  Justus  Jonas,  December  29,  1527,  "  Brief wechsel,"  6,  p.  163  : 
"  Christus  infirmus  per  vestras  orationes  adhuc  superat  vel  saltern  pugnat 
fortiter."     Cp.  "  Briefwechsel,"  6,  p.  173. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  165,  "Table-Talk." 


192  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

firmly  as  he  spoke  ;  he  was,  in  point  of  fact,  better  able  to  speak 
and  write  than  to  believe.  "  It  would  scarcely  be  right  for  us  to 
do  all  that  God  has  commanded,  for  then  what  need  would  there 
be  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ?  "x 

"  Unless  God  had  told  us  how  foolishly  the  Saints  themselves 
acted,  we  should  not  have  been  able  to  arrive  at  the  knowledge 
of  His  Kingdom,  which  is  nothing  else  but  the  forgiveness  of 
sins."2  Here  He  is  referring  to  the  stumbling  and  falls  of  the 
Patriarchs  ;  he  adds  :  "  What  wonder  that  we  stumble  ?  And 
yet  this  is  no  cloak  or  excuse  for  committing  sin."  Nevertheless, 
he  speaks  of  Abraham,  whom  he  credits  with  having  fallen  into 
idolatry  and  sin,  as  though  holiness  of  life  were  of  no  great 
importance  :  "  Believe  as  he  did  and  you  are  just  as  holy  as  he."3 
"  We  must  interpret  all  these  stories  and  examples  as  told  of 
men  like  ourselves  ;  it  is  a  delusion  to  make  such  a  fuss  about 
the  Saints.  We  ought  to  say  :  If  they  were  holy,  why,  so  are  we  ; 
if  we  are  sinners,  why,  so  were  they  ;  for  we  are  all  born  of  the 
same  flesh  and  blood  and  God  created  us  as  much  as  He  did  them  ; 
one  man  is  as  good  as  another,  and  the  only  difference  between 
us  is  faith.  If  you  have  faith  and  the  Word  of  God,  you  are  just 
as  great  ;  you  need  not  trouble  yourself  about  being  of  less 
importance  than  he,  unless  your  faith  is  less  strong."4 

By  his  "  articulus  remissionis"  the  constantly  reiterated 
Evangel  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  by  faith,  Luther  certainly 
succeeded  in  putting  down  the  mighty  from  their  seats,  but 
whether  he  inspired  the  lowly  to  qualify  for  their  possession 
is  quite  another  question. 

On  the  unsafe  ground  of  the  assurance  of  salvation  by 
faith  alone  even  the  fanatics  were  unwilling  to  stand.;  their 
preference  was  for  a  certain  interior  satisfaction  to  be  secured 
by  means  of  works.  Hence  they  and  their  teaching — to  tell 
the  truth  a  very  unsatisfactory  one — became  a  target  for 
Luther's  sarcasm.  By  a  pretence  of  strict  morals  they 
would  fain  give  the  lie  to  the  words  of  the  Our  Father, 
"  Forgive  us  our  trespasses  "  ;  "  but  we  are  determined  not 
to  make  the  Our  Father  untrue,  nor  to  reject  this  article 
(the  '  remissio  peccatorum  '),  but  to  retain  it  as  our  most 
precious  treasure,  in  which  lies  our  safety  and  salvation."5 
An  over-zealous  pursuit  of  sanctity  and  the  works  of  the 
Spirit  might  end  by  detracting  from  a  trusting  reliance  upon 
Christ.     In  Catholic  times,  for  instance,  the  two  things, 

1  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  133.    The  passage  will  be  given 
in  detail  later. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  24,  p.  355  ;   Erl.  ed.,  33,  p.  374. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  341  =  359.  4  Ibid.,  p.  342  =  360. 
5  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  182,  p.  356  f. 


THE   LUTHERAN  EVANGEL        193 

works  and  faith,  had,  so  he  complains,  been  "  hopelessly 
mixed."  "  This,  from  the  beginning  until  this  very  day, 
has  been  a  stumbling-block  and  hindrance  to  the  new 
doctrine  of  faith.  If  we  preach  works,  then  an  end  is  made 
of  faith  ;  hence,  if  we  teach  faith,  works  must  go  to  the 
wall."1 

We  must  repeat,  that,  by  this,  Luther  did  not  mean  to 
exclude  works  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  frequently  counsels 
their  performance.  He  left  behind  him  many  instructions 
concerning  the  practice  of  a  devout  life,  of  which  we  shall 
have  to  speak  more  fully  later.  On  the  other  hand,  how- 
ever, we  can  understand  how,  on  one  occasion,  he  refused 
to  draw  up  a  Christian  Rule  of  Life,  though  requested  to  do 
so  by  his  friend  Bugenhagen,  arguing  that  such  a  thing  was 
superfluous.  We  can  well  understand  his  difficulty,  for 
how  could  he  compile  a  rule  for  the  promotion  of  practical 
virtue  when  he  was  at  the  same  time  indefatigable  in  con- 
demning the  monkish  practices  of  prayer  and  meditation, 
pious  observances  and  penitential  exercises,  as  mere 
formalities  and  outgrowths  of  the  theory  of  holiness-by- 
works  ?  It  was  quite  in  keeping  with  his  leading  idea,  and 
his  hatred  of  works,  that  he  should  stigmatise  the  whole 
outward  structure  of  the  Christian  life  known  hitherto  as 
a  mere  "  service  of  imposture." 

"  Christ  has  become  to  all  of  us  a  cloak  for  our  shame."2 

"  Our  life  and  all  our  doings  must  not  have  the  honour 
and  glory  of  making  us  children  of  God  and  obtaining  for  us 
forgiveness  of  sins  and  everlasting  life.  What  is  necessary 
is  that  you  should  hear  Christ  saying  to  you  :  "  Good 
morning,  dear  brother,  in  Me  behold  your  sin  and  death 
vanquished.  The  law  has  already  been  fulfilled,  viz.  by 
Christ,  so  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  fulfil  it,  but  only  to  hang 
it  by  faith  around  Him  who  fulfils  it,  and  to  become  like 
Him."3 

"  This  is  the  Evangel  that  brings  help  and  salvation  to 
the  conscience  in  despair.  .  .  .  The  law  with  its  demands 
had  disheartened,  nay,  almost  slain  it,  but  now  comes  this 
sweet  and  joyful  message."4 

1  Cp.,  ibid.,  p.  279  ff. 

2  Letter  to  Reissenbusch,  March  27,  1525,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed., 
18,  p.  277  ;   Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  288  ("  Brief wechsel,"  5,  p.  145). 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed..  1,  p.  105. 
*  Ibid. 

III. — O 


194         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

"Be  a  sinner  and  sin  boldly,  but  believe  more  boldly 
still."1 

Luther's  "  Pecca  fortiter." 

In  what  has  gone  before,  that  we  might  the  better  see  how 
Luther's  standard  of  life  compared  with  his  claim  to  a  higher 
calling,  we  have  reviewed  in  succession  his  advice  and  conduct 
with  regard  to  one  of  the  principal  moral  questions  of  the 
Christian  life,  viz.  how  one  is  to  behave  when  tempted  to 
despondency  and  to  despair  of  one's  salvation  ;  further,  his 
attitude — theoretical  and  practical — towards  sin,  penance 
and  the  higher  tasks  and  exercises  of  Christian  virtue.  On 
each  several  point  the  ethical  defects  of  his  system  came 
to  light,  in  spite  of  all  his  efforts  to  conceal  them  by  appealing 
to  the  true  freedom  of  the  Christian,  to  the  difference  between 
the  law  and  the  Gospel,  or  to  the  power  of  faith  in  the  merits 
of  Christ. 

On  glancing  back  at  what  has  been  said,  we  can  readily 
understand  why  those  Catholic  contemporaries,  who  took 
up  the  pen  against  Luther  and  his  followers,  directed  their 
attacks  by  preference  on  these  points  of  practical  morality. 

Johann  Fabri  (i.e.  Schmidt)  of  Heilbronn,  who  filled  the 
office  of  preacher  at  Augsburg  Cathedral  until  he  was  forced 
to  vacate  the  pulpit  owing  to  the  prohibition  issued  by  the 
Magistrates  against  Catholic  preaching  in  1534,  wrote  at  a 
later  date,  in  1553,  in  his  work  "  The  Right  Way,"  of  Luther 
and  those  preachers  who  shared  his  point  of  view  :  "  The 
sweet,  sugary  preachers  who  encourage  the  people  in  their 
wickedness  say  :  The  Lord  has  suffered  for  us,  good  works 
are  unclean  and  sinful,  a  good,  pious  and  honest  life  with 
fasting,  etc.,  is  mere  Popery  and  hypocrisy,  the  Lord  has 
merited  heaven  for  us  and  our  goodness  is  all  worthless. 
These  and  such-like  are  the  sweet,  sugary  words  they  preach, 
crying  :  Peace,  Peace  !  Heaven  has  been  thrown  open, 
only  believe  and  you  are  already  justified  and  heirs  of 
heaven.  Thus  wickedness  gets  the  upper  hand,  and  those 
things  which  draw  down  upon  us  the  wrath  of  God  and  rob 
us  of  eternal  life  are  regarded  as  no  sin  at  all.  But  the  end 
shall  prove  whether  the  doctrine  is  of  God,  as  the  fruit 
shows  whether  the  tree  is  good.  What  terror  and  distress 
has  been  caused  in  Germany  by  those  who  boast  of  the  new 

1  See  below,  p.  196. 


THE   "PECCA  FORTITER"  195 

Gospel  it  is  easier  to  bewail  than  to  describe.  Ungodliness, 
horrible  sins  and  vices  hold  the  field  ;  greater  and  more 
terrible  evil,  fear  and  distress  have  never  before  been  heard 
of,  let  alone  seen  in  Germany."1 

Matthias  Sittardus,  from  the  little  town  of  Sittard  in  the 
Duchy  of  Jiilich,  a  zealous  and  energetic  worker  at  Aachen, 
wrote  as  follows  of  Luther's  exhortations  quoted  above  : 
"  The  result  is  that  men  say,  What  does  sin  matter  ?  Christ 
took  it  away  on  the  cross  ;  the  evil  that  I  do — for  I  must 
sin  and  cannot  avoid  it — He  is  ready  to  bear  ;  He  will 
answer  for  it  and  refrain  from  imputing  it  to  me  ;  I  have 
only  to  believe  and  off  it  goes  like  a  flash.  Good  works  have 
actually  become  a  reproach  and  are  exposed  to  contempt 
and  abuse."2 — Elsewhere  he  laments,  that  "there  is  much 
glorying  in  and  boasting  of  faith,"  but  of  "  good  works  and 
actions  little  "  is  seen.3 

Alluding  to  man's  unfreedorh  for  doing  what  is  good,  as 
advocated  by  Luther,  Johann  Mensing,  a  scholarly  and  busy 
popular  writer,  says  :  "  They  [the  preachers]  call  God  a 
sinner  and  maintain  that  God  does  all  our  sins  in  us.  And 
when  they  have  sinned  most  grievously  they  argue  that 
such  was  God's  Will,  and  that  they  could  do  nothing  but  by 
God's  Will.  They  look  upon  the  treachery  of  Judas,  the 
adultery  of  David  and  Peter's  denial  as  being  simply  the 
work  of  God,  just  as  much  as  the  best  of  good  deeds."4 

The  words  quoted  above  :  "Be  a  sinner  and  sin  boldly, 
but  believe  more  boldly  still,"  are  Luther's  own. 

The  saying,  which  must  not  be  taken  apart  from  the  context, 
was  employed  by  Luther  in  a  letter  to  Melanchthon,  on  August  1, 
1521. 6    The  writer,  who  was  then  at  the  Wartburg,  was  engaged 

1  "  Der  rechte  Weg.  Welche  Weg  oder  Strass  der  Glaubig  wandem 
soil,"  etc.  Dillingen,  1553.  The  passages  are  quoted  by  N.  Paulus, 
"  Die  deutschen  Dominikaner  im  Kampfe  gegen  Luther,"  p.  252. 

2  "  Christl.  Predigt.  an  S.  Matthei  Tag,"  Mainz,  1557,  in  Paulus, 
ibid.,  p.  168. 

3  "  Predigten  iiber  die  erste  Canon.  Epistel  Johannis,"  Cologne, 
1571.     Paulus,  ibid.,  p.  173. 

4  "  Vormeldunge  der  Unwahrheit  Lutherscher  Clage,"  Frankfurt 
a.d.  Oder,  1532,Paulus,  ibid.,  p.  33.  The  three  writers  above  quoted  were 
all  Dominicans.  Luther's  Catholic  contemporaries  cannot  have  been 
acquainted  with  his  "  Pecca  ortiter"  otherwise  their  language  would 
have  been  even  stronger. 

5  "  Brief wechsel,"  3,  p.  208.  The  letter  no  longer  exists  in  its 
entirety.  One  portion,  however,  became  known  and  was  published  by 
Joh.  Aurifaber  in  1556  in  the  first  vol.  of  Luther's  letters  (p.  343)  and 


196  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

in  a  "  heated  struggle  "x  on  the  question  of  the  Church,  and  on 
religious  vows,  for  the  setting  aside  of  which  he  was  seeking  a 
ground.  At  the  Wartburg  he  was,  on  his  own  confession,  a  prey- 
to  "  temptations  and  sins,"2  though  in  this  he  only  saw  the  proof 
that  his  Evangel  would  triumph  over  the  devil.  The  letter  is 
the  product  of  a  state  of  mind,  restless,  gloomy  and  exalted,  and 
culminates  in  a  prophetic  utterance  concerning  God's  approaching 
visitation  of  Germany  on  account  of  its  persecution  of  the 
Evangel. 

The  passage  which  at  present  interests  us,  taken  together  with 
the  context,  runs  thus  : 

"  If  you  are  a  preacher  of  grace,  then  preach  a  real,  not  a 
fictitious  grace  ;  if  your  grace  is  real,  then  let  your  sin  also  be  real 
and  not  fictitious.  God  does  not  save  those  who  merely  fancy 
themselves  sinners.  Be  a  sinner  and  sin  boldly,  but  believe  more 
boldly  still  ( '  esto  peccator  et  pecca  fortiter,  sed  fortius  fide  ' )  ;  and 
rejoice  in  Christ,  Who  is  the  conqueror  of  sin,  death  and  the 
world  ;  we  must  sin  as  long  as  we  are  what  we  are.  This  life  is 
not  the  abode  of  justice,  but  we  look  for  a  new  heaven  and  a  new 
earth  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness,  as  Peter  says.  It  suffices 
that  by  the  riches  of  the  glory  of  God  we  have  come  to  know  the 
Lamb,  Who  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  ;  sin  shall  not  drag 
us  away  from  Him,  even  should  we  commit  fornication  or  murder 
thousands  and  thousands  of  times  a  day.  Do  you  think  that  the 
price  and  the  ransom  paid  for  our  sins  by  this  sublime  Lamb  is 
so  insignificant  ?  Pray  boldly,  for  you  are  in  truth  a  very  bold 
sinner." 

This  is  language  of  the  most  extravagant  paradox.  What  it 
really  means  is  very  objectionable.  Melanchthon  is  to  pray  very 
fervently  with  the  hope  of  obtaining  the  Divine  assistance 
against  sin,  but  at  the  same  time  he  is  to  sin  boldly.  This 
language  of  the  Wartburg  is  not  unlike  that  in  which  Luther 
wrote,  from  the  Castle  of  Coburg,  to  his  pupil,  Hieronymus 
Weller,  when  the  latter  was  tempted  to  despair,  to  encourage  him 
against  the  fear  of  sin  (above,  p.  175  f.) ;  that  letter  too  was  written 
in  anguish  of  spirit  and  in  a  state  of  excitement  similar  to  what 
he  had  experienced  in  the  Wartburg.  We  might,  it  is  true,  admit 
that,  in  these  words  Luther  gave  the  rein  to  his  well-known 
inclination  to  put  things  in  the  strongest  light,  a  tendency  to  be 
noticed  in  some  of  his  other  statements  quoted  above.  On  the 
other  hand,  however,  the  close  connection  between  the  com- 
promising words  and  his  whole  system  of  sin  and  grace,  can  scarcely 
be  denied  ;  we  have  here  something  more  than  a  figure  of  rhetoric. 
Luther's  endeavour  was  to  reassure,  once  and  for  all,  Melanchthon, 

described  as  "  Fragmentum  epistolce  D.M.  Lutheri  ad  Philippum 
Melanchthonem  ex  Pathmo  scriptce,  a.  MDXXI.,  repertum  in  bibliotheca 
Oeorgii  Spalatini."  Melanchthon  had  possibly  sent  the  extract  to 
Spalatin  when  the  latter  was  troubled  regarding  his  own  salvation. 

1  (See  below.)     "  Vides  quantis  urgear  cestibus,"  etc.    To  Melanch- 
thon, August  3,  1521,  "  Brief wechsel,"  3,  p.  213. 

2  See  vol.  ii.,  p.  82  f. 


THE   "PECCA  FORTITER"  197 

who  was  so  prone  to  anxiety.  The  latter  shrank  from  many  of 
the  consequences  of  Luther's  doctrines,  and  at  that  time  was 
possibly  also  a  prey  to  apprehension  concerning  the  forgiveness 
of  his  own  sins.  Hence  the  writer  of  the  letter  seeks  to  convince 
him  that  the  strength  of  the  fiducial  faith  preached  by  himself, 
Luther,  was  so  great,  that  no  sense  of  sin  need  trouble  a  man. 
To  have  "  real,  not  fictitious,  sin  "  to  him,  means  as  much  as  : 
Be  bold  enough  to  look  upon  yourself  as  a  great  sinner  ;  "  Be 
a  sinner,"  means  :  Do  not  be  afraid  of  appearing  to  be  a  sinner 
in  your  own  sight  ;  Melanchthon  is  to  be  a  bold  sinner  in  his 
own  eyes  in  order  that  he  may  be  the  more  ready  to  ascribe  all 
that  is  good  to  the  grace  which  works  all.  Thus  far  there  is 
nothing  which  goes  beyond  Luther's  teaching  elsewhere. 

The  passage  is,  however,  more  than  a  mere  paradoxical  way 
of  expressing  the  doctrine  dear  to  him. 

Luther,  here  and  throughout  the  letter,  does  not  say  what  he 
ought  necessarily  to  have  said  to  one  weighed  down  by  the 
consciousness  of  sin  ;  of  remorse  and  compunction  we  hear 
nothing  whatever,  nor  does  he  give  due  weight  and  importance 
to  the  consciousness  of  guilt ;  he  misrepresents  grace,  making  it 
appear  as  a  mere  outward,  magical  charm,  by  which — according 
to  an  expression  which  cannot  but  offend  every  religious  mind — 
a  man  is  justified  even  though  he  be  a  murderer  and  a  libertine  a 
thousand  times  over.  Luther's  own  words  here  are  perhaps  the 
best  refutation  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  Justification,  for  he 
speaks  of  sin,  even  of  the  worst,  in  a  way  that  well  lays  bare  the 
weaknesses  of  the  system  of  fiducial  faith. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  Luther  should  have  impressed  such  a 
stigma  upon  his  principal  doctrine,  both  in  his  earliest  statements 
of  it,  for  instance,  in  his  letter  to  George  Spenlein  in  1516,  and, 
again,  in  one  of  his  last  epistles  to  a  friend,  also  tormented  by 
scruples  of  conscience,  viz.  George  Spalatin.1 

In  the  above-mentioned  letter  to  Melanchthon,  in  which 
Luther  expresses  his  contempt  for  sin  by  the  words  "  Pecca 
fortiter"  he  is  not  only  encouraging  his  friend  with  regard 

1  Passages  tallying  with  the  "  Esto  peccator  "  are  to  be  found  else- 
where in  Luther's  writings.  Cp.  for  instance  his  letter  of  1516  (vol.  i., 
p.  88  f.)  to  Spenlein,  where  he  says  :  "  Cave,  ne  aliquando  ad  tantam 
puritatem  aspires,  ut  peccator  tibi  videri  nolis,  imo  esse.  Christus  enim 
nonnisi  in  peccatoribus  habitat.  .  .  .  Igitur  nonnisi  in  illo  pacem 
invenies.''''  In  "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  1,  p.  236  seq.,  it  is  likewise  explained 
why  one  must  be  a  great  sinner  ;  he  insists  that  "  credenti  omnia  sunt 
auctore  Christo  possibilia  "  and  condemns  strongly  "  affectus  proprice 
iustitioz,"  until  he  arrives  at  the  paradox,  "  Ideo  est  pcccatum,  ut  in 
peccatis  apti  ad  spent  simus  "  (p.  239).  In  perfect  harmony  with  such 
early  statements  is  the  letter  he  wrote  towards  the  end  of  his  life  to 
Spalatin  when  the  latter  was  sunk  in  melancholy  ;  here  he  says  : 
' '  Nimis  tener  hactenus  fuisti  peccator.  .  .  .  lunge  te  nobis  veris  magnis 
et  duris  peccatoribus  "  ;  he  must,  so  Christ  speaking  through  Luther 
tells  him,  hold  alone  to  faith  in  the  Divine  mercv.  August  21,  1544, 
"  Briefe,"  ed.  De  Wette,  5,  p.  680. 


198         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

to  possible  sins  of  the  past,  but  is  also  thinking  of  tempta- 
tions in  the  future.  His  advice  is  :  Sin  boldly  and  fear- 
lessly— whereas  what  one  would  have  expected  would  have 
been  :  Should  you  fall,  don't  despair.  The  underlying  idea 
is  :  No  sin  is  so  detestable  as  to  affright  the  believer,  which 
is  further  explained  by  the  wanton  phrase  :  "  even  should 
we  commit  fornication  or  murder  thousands  and  thousands 
of  times  a  day." 

However  much  stress  we  may  be  disposed  to  lay  on 
Luther's  warnings  against  sin,  and  whatever  allowance  we 
may  make  for  his  rhetoric,  still  the  "  Peccafortiter  "  stands  out 
as  the  result  of  his  revolt  against  the  traditional  view  of  sin 
and  grace,  with  which  his  own  doctrine  of  Justification  refused 
to  be  reconciled.  These  inauspicious  words  are  the  culmination 
of  Luther's  practical  ideas  on  religion,  borne  witness  to  by 
so  many  of  his  statements,  which,  at  the  cost  of  morality, 
give  the  reins  to  human  freedom  and  to  disorder.  Such  was 
the  state  of  mind  induced  in  him  by  the  spirits  of  the 
Wartburg,  such  the  enthusiasm  which  followed  his  "  spiritual 
baptism  "  on  his  "  Patmos,"  that  isle  of  sublime  revelations. 

Such  is  the  defiance  involved  in  the  famous  saying  that  an 
impartial  critic,  Johann  Adam  Mohler,  in  his  "  Symbolism  " 
says  :  "  Although  too  much  stress  must  not  be  laid  on  the 
passage,  seeing  how  overwrought  and  excited  the  author 
was,  yet  it  is  characteristic  enough  and  important  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  history  of  dogma."1  G.  Barge,  in 
his  Life  of  Carlstadt,  says,  that  Luther  in  his  letter  to 
Melanchthon  had  reduced  "  his  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
faith  alone  to  the  baldest  possible  formula."2  "  If  Catholic 
research  continues  to  make  this  [the  '  Pecca  fortite?*']  its 
point  of  attack,  we  must  honestly  admit  that  there  is  reason 
in  its  choice." 

The  last  words  are  from  Walter  Kohler,  now  at  the  University 
of  Zurich,  a  Protestant  theologian  and  historian,  who  has  severely 
criticised  all  Luther's  opinions  on  sin  and  grace.3 

One  of  the  weak  points  of  Luther's  theology  lies,  according 
to  Kohler,4  in  the  "  clumsiness  of  his  doctrine  of  sin  and  salva- 

1  "  Symbolik,"  §  16,  p.  161. 

2  1,  p.  301.  Other  Protestant  writers,  such  as  Carove  ("  Allein- 
seligmachende  Kirche,"  2,  p.  434  (see  K.  A.  Hase,  "  Polemik,"  4 
p.  267),  declared  it  to  be  "a  downright  calumny  to  say  that  so  shocking 
a  doctrine  occurred  in  a  work  of  Luther's." 

3  "  Katholizismus  und  Reformation,"  p.  58. 

*  "  Ein  Wort  zu  Denifles  Luther,"  Tubingen,  1904.  pp.  38-45. 


THE   "PECCA  FORTITER"  199 

tion."  "  How,  in  view  of  the  total  corruption  of  man  "  (through 
original  sin,  absence  of  free  will  and  loss  of  all  power),  can  redemp- 
tion be  possible  at  all  unless  by  some  mechanical  and  super- 
natural means  ?  Luther  says  :  "  By  faith  alone."  But  his 
"  faith  is  something  miraculous,  in  which  psychology  has  no 
part  whatever  ;  the  corruption  is  mechanical  and  so  is  the  act 
of  grace  which  removes  it."  In  Luther's  doctrine  of  sin,  as 
Kohler  remarks,  the  will,  the  instrument  by  which  the  process 
of  redemption  should  be  effected,  becomes  a  steed  "  ridden 
either  by  God  or  by  the  devil.  If  the  Almighty  is  the  horseman, 
He  throws  Satan  out  of  the  saddle,  and  vice  versa  ;  the  steed, 
however,  remains  entirely  helpless  and  unable  to  rid  himself  of 
his  rider.  In  such  a  system  Christ,  the  Redeemer,  must  appear 
as  a  sort  of  '  deus  ex  machina,'  who  at  one  blow  sets  everything 
right."  It  would  not  be  so  bad,  were  at  least  "  the  Almighty  to 
overthrow  Satan.  But  He  remains  ever  seated  in  heaven,  i.e. 
Luther  never  forgets  to  impress  on  man  again  and  again  that  he 
cannot  get  out  of  sin  :  '  The  Saints  remain  always  sinners  at 
heart.'  " 

Although,  proceeds  Kohler,  better  thoughts,  yea,  even  inspiring 
ones,  are  to  be  found  in  Luther's  writings,  yet  the  peculiar 
doctrines  just  spoken  of  were  certainly  his  own,  at  utter  variance 
though  they  be  with  our  way  of  looking  at  the  process  of  in- 
dividual salvation,  viz.  from  the  psychological  point  of  view, 
and  of  emphasising  the  personal  will  to  be  saved.  "  In  spite  of 
Luther's  plain  and  truly  evangelical  intention  of  attributing  to 
God  alone  all  the  honour  of  the  work  of  salvation,"  he  was  never 
able  "  clearly  to  comprehend  the  personal,  ethico -religious 
value  of  faith  *'  ;  "on  the  contrary,  he  makes  man  to  be  shifted 
hither  and  thither,  by  the  hand  of  God,  like  a  mere  pawn,  and  in 
a  fashion  entirely  fatalistic";  "when  Christ  enters,  then, 
according  to  him,  all  is  well  ;  I  am  no  longer  a  sinner,  I  am  set 
free"  ("  iam  ego  peccatum  non  habeo  et  sum  liber")1; — "but 
where  does  the  ethical  impulse  come  in  ?  "  Seeing  that  sin  is 
merely  covered  over,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  still  remains, 
man  must,  according  to  Luther,  "  set  to  work  to  conquer  it 
without,  however,  ever  being  entirely  successful  in  this  task,  or 
rather  he  must  strengthen  his  assurance  of  salvation,  viz.  his 
faith.  Such  is  Luther's  ethics."  The  critic  rightly  points  out, 
that  this  "  system  of  ethics  is  essentially  negative,"  viz.  merely 
directs  man  how  "  not  to  fall  "  from  the  "  pedestal  "  on  which 
he  is  set  up  together  with  Christ.  Man,  by  faith,  is  raised  so  high, 
that,  as  Luther  says,  "nothing  can  prejudice  his  salvation  "  ;2 
"  Christian  freedom  means  .  .  .  that  we  stand  in  no  need  of 
any  works  in  order  to  attain  to  piety  and  salvation."3 

1  Kohler  here  quotes  Denifle  ("Luther,"  p.  442;  ed.  2,  p.  465),  who 
gives  these  words  in  their  full  context  from  Luther's  MS.  Commentary 
on  Romans.  We  may  point  out  that  Denifle  quotes  an  abundance  of 
similar  passages  from  Luther's  works,  amongst  which  those  taken  from 
his  early  Commentary  on  Romans  are  particularly  interesting. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  7,  p.  27  ;  Erl.  ed.,  27,  p.  185  ;  Kohler, 
ibid.,  p.  43  f.  3  Ibid.,  p.  25  =  181  =  44. 


200         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

3.   Luther's  Admissions  Concerning  His  own 
Practice  of  Virtue 

St.  Paul,  the  far-seeing  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  says  of 
the  ethical  effects  of  the  Gospel  and  of  faith  :  "  Those  who 
are  Christ's  have  crucified  their  flesh  with  the  lusts  thereof. 
If  we  live  in  the  Spirit  let  us  also  walk  in  the  Spirit."  He 
instances  as  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  :  "  Patience,  longanimity, 
goodness,  benignity,  mildness,  faith,  modesty,  continency, 
chastity  "  (Gal.  v.  22  ff.).  Amongst  the  qualities  which  must 
adorn  a  teacher  and  guide  of  the  faithful  he  instances  to 
Timothy  the  following  :  "It  behoveth  him  to  be  blameless, 
sober,  prudent,  of  good  behaviour,  chaste,  no  striker,  not 
quarrelsome  ;  he  must  have  a  good  testimony  of  them  that 
are  without,  holding  the  mystery  of  the  faith  in  a  pure 
conscience  "  (1  Tim.  iii.  2  ff.).  Finally  he  sums  up  all  in  the 
exhortation  :  "Be  thou  an  example  to  the  faithful  in  word, 
in  conversation,  in  charity,  in  faith,  in  chastity  "  (ibid.,  iv. 
12). 

It  seems  not  unjust  to  expect  of  Luther  that  his  standard 
of  life  should  be  all  the  higher,  since,  in  opposition  to  all  the 
teachers  of  his  day  and  of  bygone  ages,  and  whilst  professing 
to  preach  nought  but  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he  had  set  up  a 
new  system,  not  merely  of  faith,  but  also  of  morals.  At 
the  very  least  the  power  of  his  Evangel  should  have  mani- 
fested itself  in  his  own  person  in  an  exceptional  manner. 

How  far  was  this  the  case  ?  What  was  the  opinion  of  his 
contemporaries  and  what  was  his  own  ? 

Catholics  were  naturally  ever  disposed  to  judge  Luther's 
conduct  from  a  standpoint  different  from  that  of  Luther's 
own  followers.  A  Catholic,  devoted  to  his  Church,  regarded 
as  his  greatest  blemish  the  conceit  of  the  heresiarch  and 
devastator  of  the  fold  ;  to  him  it  seemed  intolerable  that  a 
disobedient  and  rebellious  son  of  the  Church  should  display 
such  pride  as  to  set  himself  above  her  and  the  belief  of 
antiquity  and  should  attack  her  so  hatefully.  As  for  his 
morality,  his  sacrilegious  marriage  with  a  virgin  dedicated 
to  God,  his  incessant  attacks  upon  celibacy  and  religious 
vows,  and  his  seducing  of  countless  souls  to  break  their 
most  sacred  promises,  were  naturally  sufficient  to  debase 
him  in  the  eyes  of  most  Catholics. 

There    were,    however,    certain    questions    which    both 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  BELIEF         201 

Catholics  and  Lutherans  could  ask  and  answer  impartially  : 
Did  Luther  possess  in  any  eminent  degree  the  fiducial  faith 
which  he  represented  as  so  essential  ?  Did  this  faith  produce 
in  him  those  fruits  he  extols  as  its  spontaneous  result,  above 
all  a  glad  heart  at  peace  with  God  and  man  ?  Further  : 
How  far  did  he  himself  come  up  even  to  that  comparatively 
low  standard  to  which,  theoretically,  he  reduced  Christian 
perfection  ? 

If  we  seek  from  Luther's  own  lips  an  estimate  of  his 
virtues,  we  shall  hear  from  him  many  frank  statements  on 
the  subject. 

The  first  place  belongs  to  what  he  says  of  his  faith  and 
personal  assurance  of  salvation. 

Of  faith,  he  wrote  to  Melanchthon,  who  was  tormented 
with  doubts  and  uncertainty  :  "  To  you  and  to  us  all  may 
God  give  an  increase  of  faith.  ...  If  we  have  no  faith  in 
us,  why  not  at  least  comfort  ourselves  with  the  faith  that 
is  in  others  ?  For  there  must  needs  be  others  who  believe 
instead  of  us,  otherwise  there  would  be  no  Church  left  in  the 
world,  and  Christ  would  have  ceased  to  be  with  us  till  the 
end  of  time.  If  He  is  not  with  us,  where  then  is  He  in  the 
world  ?  "i 

He  complains  so  frequently  of  the  weakness  of  his  own 
faith  that  we  are  vividly  reminded  how  greatly  he  himself 
stood  in  need  of  the  "  consolation  "  of  dwelling  on  the  faith 
that  was  in  others.  He  never,  it  is  true,  attributes  to  him- 
self actual  unbelief,  or  a  wilful  abandon  of  trust  in  the 
promises  of  Christ,  yet  he  does  speak  in  strangely  forcible 
terms — and  with  no  mere  assumed  humility  or  modesty — 
of  the  weakness  of  this  faith  and  of  the  inconstancy  of  his 
trust. 

Of  the  devil,  who  unsettles  him,  he  says  :  "  Often  I  am  shaken, 
but  not  always."2  To  the  devil  it  was  given  to  play  the  part  of 
torturer.  "  I  prefer  the  tormentor  of  the  body  to  the  torturer  of 
the  soul."3 — "Alas,  the  Apostles  believed,  of  this  there  can  be 
no  doubt ;    I  can't  believe,  and  yet  I  preach  faith  to  others.     I 

1  On  June  29,  1530,  from  the  fortress  of  Coburg,  "  Brief wechsel," 
8,  p.  44.  Melanchthon  had  told  Luther  his  fears  and  anxieties  on 
account  of  the  impending  discussion  of  the  point  of  faith  before  the 
Diet  of  Augsburg.    Luther  is  encouraging  him. 

2  To  Melanchthon,  June  27,  1530,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  8,  p.  35. 

3  In  the  letter  quoted  above,  n.  1  (p.  43)  :  "  carnificem  ilium 
spiritus.'''' 


202         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

know  that  it  is  true,  yet  believe  it  I  cannot."1  "  I  know  Jonas, 
and  if  he  [like  Christ]  were  to  ascend  to  heaven  and  disappear  out 
of  our  sight,  what  should  I  then  think  ?  And  when  Peter  said : 
'  In  the  name  of  Jesus,  arise  '  [Acts  iii.  6],  what  a  marvel  that 
was  !  I  don't  understand  it  and  I  can't  believe  it ;  and  yet  all 
the  Apostles  believed."2 

"  I  have  been  preaching  for  these  twenty  years,  and  read  and 
written,  so  that  I  ought  to  see  my  way  .  .  .  and  yet  I  cannot 
grasp  the  fact,  that  I  must  rely  on  grace  alone  ;  and  still,  other- 
wise it  cannot  be,  for  the  mercy-seat  alone  must  count  and 
remain  since  God  has  established  it  ;  short  of  this  no  man  can 
reach  God.  Hence  it  is  no  wonder  that  others  find  it  so  hard 
to  accept  faith  in  its  purity,  more  particularly  when  these  devil- 
preachers  [the  Papists]  add  to  the  difficulty  by  such  texts  as  : 
'  Do  this  and  thou  shalt  live,'  item  '  Wilt  thou  enter  into  life, 
keep  the  commandments  '  (Luke  x.  28  ;   Matthew  xix.  17)." 3 

He  is  unable  to  find  within  him  that  faith  which,  according 
to  his  system,  ought  to  exist,  and,  in  many  passages,  he  even 
insists  on  its  difficulty  in  a  very  curious  manner.  "  Ah,  dear 
child,  if  only  one  could  believe  firmly,"  he  said  to  his  little 
daughter,  who  "  was  speaking  of  Christ  with  joyful  confidence  "  ; 
and,  in  answer  to  the  question,  "  whether  then  he  did  not  believe," 
he  replied  by  praising  the  innocence  and  strong  faith  of  children, 
whose  example  Christ  bids  us  follow.4 

In  the  notes  among  which  these  words  are  preserved  there 
follows  a  collection  of  similar  statements  belonging  to  various 
periods  :  "  This  argument,  '  The  just  shall  live  in  his  faith  ' 
(Hab.  ii.  4),  the  devil  is  unable  to  explain  away.  But  the  point 
is,  who  is  able  to  lay  hold  on  it  ?  "B — "  I,  alas,  cannot  believe  as 
firmly  as  I  can  preach,  speak  and  write,  and  as  others  fancy  I 
am  able  to  believe."6 — When  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  speaks 
of  dying  daily  (1  Cor.  xv.  31),  this  means,  so  Luther  thinks,  that 
he  had  doubts  about  his  own  teaching.  In  the  same  way  Christ 
withdraws  Himself  from  him,  Luther,  "  so  that  at  times  I  say  : 
Truly  I  know  not  where  I  stand,  or  whether  I  am  preaching 
aright  or  not."7  "I  used  to  believe  all  that  the  Pope  and  the 
monks  said,  but  now  I  am  unable  to  believe  what  Christ  says, 
Who  cannot  lie.  This  is  an  annoying  business,  but  we  shall  keep 
it  for  that  [the  Last]  Day."  8 

"  Conscience's  greatest  consolation,"  he  also  says,  according 
to  the  same  notes,  "  is  simply  the  Lord  Christ,"  and  he  proceeds 
to  describe  in  detail  this  consolation  in  language  of  much  power, 
agreeably  with  his  doctrine  of  Justification.  He,  however, 
concludes  :  "  But  I  cannot  grasp  this  consoling  doctrine,  I  can 
neither  learn  it  nor  bear  it  in  mind."  9 

"  I  am  very  wretched  owing  to  the  weakness  of  my  faith  ; 


1  Mathesius,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  98. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  79.  3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  19,  p. 
4  Ibid.,  58,  p.  363  f.                5  Ibid.,  p.  374. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  380.  7  Ibid.,  p.  26. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  385.  •  Ibid.,  p.  402. 


325. 


DIFFICULTIES   OF   BELIEF         203 

hardly  can  I  find  any  comfort  in  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ,  or  in  the  article  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  ...  I 
cannot  succeed  in  laying  hold  on  the  essential  treasure,  viz. 
the  free  forgiveness  of  sins."1 

"It  is  a  difficult  matter  to  spring  straight  from  my  sins  to 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  to  be  as  certain  that  Christ's 
righteousness  is  mine  as  I  am  that  my  own  body  is  mine.  .  .  . 
I  am  astonished  that  I  cannot  learn  this  doctrine."2 

In  a  passage  already  quoted  Luther  rightly  described  the  task 
he  assigned  to  grace  and  faith  as  something  "  which  affrights  a 
man,"  for  which  reason  it  is  "  hard  for  him  to  believe  "  ;  he 
himself  had  often,  so  to  speak,  to  fight  his  way  out  of  hell,  "  but 
it  costs  much  before  one  obtains  consolation." 

Such  statements  we  can  well  understand  if  we  put  ourselves  in 
his  place.  The  effects  he  ascribed  to  fiducial  faith  were  so 
difficult  of  attainment  and  so  opposed  to  man's  natural  dis- 
position, that  never-ending  uncertainty  was  the  result,  both  in 
his  own  case  and  in  that  of  many  others.  Moreover,  he,  or  rather 
his  peculiar  interpretation  of  Holy  Scripture,  was  the  only 
guarantee  of  his  doctrine,  whereas  the  Catholic  Church  took  her 
stand  upon  the  broad  and  firm  basis  of  a  settled,  traditional 
interpretation,  and  traced  back  her  teaching  to  an  authority 
instituted  by  God  and  equipped  with  infallibility.  In  his  "  temp- 
tations of  faith,"  Luther  clung  to  the  most  varied  arguments, 
dwelling  at  one  time  on  the  fact  of  his  election,  at  another  on  the 
depravity  of  his  opponents,  now  on  the  malice  of  the  devil  sent 
to  oppose  him,  now  on  the  supposed  advantages  of  his  doctrine, 
as  for  instance,  that  it  gave  all  the  honour  to  God  alone  and 
made  an  end  of  everything  human,  even  of  free  will  :  "  Should 
Satan  take  advantage  of  this  and  ally  himself  with  the  flesh  and 
with  reason,  then  conscience  becomes  affrighted  and  despairs, 
unless  you  resolutely  enter  into  yourself  and  say  :  Even  should 
Cyprian,  Ambrose,  Augustine,  St.  Peter,  Paul,  John,  nay,  an 
angel  from  heaven,  teach  otherwise,  yet  I  know  for  a  certainty 
that  what  I  teach  is  not  human  but  divine,  i.e.  that  I  ascribe  all 
to  God  and  nothing  to  man."3 

"  I  do  not  understand  it,  I  am  unable  to  believe  ...  I  cannot 
believe  and  yet  I  teach  others.  I  know  that  it  is  right  and  yet 
believe  it  I  cannot.  Sometimes  I  think  :  You  teach  the  truth, 
for  you  have  the  office  and  vocation,  you  are  of  assistance  to 
many  and  glorify  Christ  ;  for  we  do  not  preach  Aristotle  or 
Caesar,  but  Jesus  Christ.  But  when  I  consider  my  weakness, 
how  I  eat  and  drink  and  am  considered  a  merry  fellow,  then  I 
begin  to  doubt.     Alas,  if  one  could  only  believe  !  "4 

"  Heretics  believe  themselves  to  be  holy.  I  find  not  a  scrap 
of  holiness  in  myself,  but  only  great  weakness.    As  soon  as  I  am 

1  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Rebenstock,  2,  p.  146. 

2  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  41. 

3  "  Comment,  in  Gal."  (1531),  ed.  Irmischer,  1,  p.  102.  Cp.  above, 
p.  139,  n.  1. 

4  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  ed.  Kroker,  p.  79. 


204         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

assailed  by  temptation  I  understand  the  Spirit,  but  nevertheless 
the  flesh  resists.  [That  is]  idolatry  against  the  first  table  [of  the 
law].  Gladly  would  I  be  formally  just,  but  I  am  not  conscious 
of  being  so." 

And  Pomeranus  replied  :  "  Neither  am  I  conscious  of  it,  Herr 
Doctor."1 

Before  passing  on  to  some  of  Luther's  statements  con- 
cerning the  consonance  of  his  life  with  faith,  we  may 
remark  that  there  is  no  lack  of  creditable  passages  in  his 
writings  on  the  conforming  of  ethics  to  faith.  Although  here 
our  task  is  not  to  depict  in  its  entirety  the  morality  of  Luther 
and  his  doctrine,  but  merely  to  furnish  an  historical  answer 
to  the  question  whether  there  existed  in  him  elements  which 
rendered  his  claim  to  a  higher  mission  incredible,  still  we 
must  not  forget  his  many  praiseworthy  exhortations  to 
virtue,  intended,  moreover,  not  merely  for  others,  but  also 
for  himself. 

That  the  devil  must  be  resisted  and  that  his  tricks  and 
temptations  lead  to  what  is  evil,  has  been  insisted  upon  by 
few  preachers  so  frequently  as  by  Luther,  who  in  almost 
every  address,  every  chapter  of  his  works,  and  every  letter 
treats  of  the  sinister  power  of  the  devil.  Another  favourite, 
more  positive  theme  of  his  discourses,  whether  to  the 
members  of  his  household  or  to  the  larger  circle  of  the  public, 
was  the  domestic  virtues  and  the  cheerful  carrying  out  of  the 
duties  of  one's  calling.  He  was  also  fond,  in  the  sermons  he 
was  so  indefatigable  in  preaching,  of  bringing  home  to  those 
oppressed  with  the  burden  of  life's  troubles  the  consolation 
of  certain  evangelical  truths,  and  of  breaking  the  bread  of 
the  Word  to  the  little  ones  and  the  unlearned.  With  the 
utmost  earnestness  he  sought  to  awaken  trust  in  God, 
resignation  to  His  Providence,  hope  in  His  Mercy  and  Bounty 
and  the  confession  of  our  own  weakness.  One  idea  on  which 
he  was  particularly  fond  of  lingering,  was,  that  we  must  pray 
because  we  depend  entirely  upon  God,  and  that  we  must  put 
aside  all  confidence  in  ourselves  in  order  that  we  may  be 
filled  with  His  Grace. 

Unfortunately  such  thoughts  too  often  brought  him 
back  to  his  own  pet  views  of  man's  passivity  and 
absence    of    free    will    and    the    all-effecting    power    of 

1  Ibid.,  p.  147  f.  We  shall  treat  more  fully  of  Luther's  "  Tempta- 
tions "  against  faith  and  his  inner  wavering  in  vol.  v.,  xxxii. 


HIS   INNER   LIFE  205 

God.  "  The  game  is  always  won,"  he  cries,  "  and  if 
it  is  won  there  is  no  longer  any  pain  or  trouble  more  ; 
there  is  no  need  to  struggle  and  fight,  for  all  has  already 
been  accomplished."1  "  Christ,  the  Conqueror,  has  done  all, 
so  that  there  is  nothing  left  for  us  to  do,  to  root  out  sin,  to  slay 
the  devil  or  to  overcome  death  ;  they  all  have  been  trampled 
to  the  ground.  .  .  .  The  doing  was  not,  however,  our 
work."2 — "  The  Christian's  work  is  to  sleep  and  do  nothing  "; 
thus  does  he  sum  up  in  one  of  his  sermons  the  exhortations 
he  had  previously  given  to  rest  altogether  on  the  merits  of 
Christ ;  even  should  a  man  "  fall  into  sin  and  be  up  to  the 
neck  in  it,  let  him  remember  that  Christ  is  no  taker,  but  a 
most  gracious  giver  "  ;  this  is  "  a  very  sweet  and  cheering 
doctrine  ;  others,  it  is  true,  teach  that  you  must  do  so  much 
for  sin,  must  live  in  this  or  that  way,  since  God  must  be  paid 
to  the  last  farthing  before  you  can  appear  before  Him.  Such 
people  make  of  God  a  torturer  and  taskmaster."3  After 
having  recommended  prayer  he  inveighs  against  what  he  calls 
its  abuse  :  "  They  say  :  I  will  pray  until  God  gives  me  His 
Grace  ;  but  nothing  comes  of  it,  because  God  says  to  them  : 
You  cannot  and  never  will  be  able  to  do  anything  ;  but  I 
shall  do  everything."  "  Everything  through  Christ : 
through  works,  nothing  whatever."4 

Luther  has  some  remarkable  admissions  to  make,  par- 
ticularly in  his  private  utterances,  concerning  the  manner  in 
which  he  himself  and  his  chosen  circle  lived  their  faith. 

"  I  cannot  express  in  words  what  great  pains  I  took  in  the 
Papacy  to  be  righteous.     Now,  however,  I  have  ceased  entirely 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  50,  p.  153.     Exposition  of  John  xvi. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  154. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  9,  p.  407,  in  a  Sermon  on  Genesis  xxviii. 
Joh.  Poliander's  Collection. 

4  Ibid.,  11,  p.  197,  Sermon  in  1523  from  Rorer's  notes.  Though  in 
the  passages  just  quoted  he  lays  great  stress  on  the  fact,  that  nothing 
is  needed  on  our  part  for  the  obtaining  of  forgiveness  (not  even  as 
Catholics  taught  any  co-operation  on  our  part  with  God's  helping 
grace),  yet  he  speaks  here  again  of  the  "  emptying  of  the  heart  of  all 
affection  "  for  creatures,  and  of  the  "  works  "  which  proceed  from  a 
heart  that  is  purified  by  faith.  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  9,  p.  409.  "  If 
you  have  now  the  wedding  garment,  then  serve  your  neighbour, 
give  yourself  up  to  him  entirely,  take  compassion  on  him.  [For]  the 
Christian  life  consists  in  faith  in  God  and  charity  towards  our  neigh- 
bour." Ibid.,  12,  p.  670,  in  another  set  of  notes  of  the  sermon  just 
quoted.  "  First  we  become  brides  [of  Christ]  by  faith,  and,  then,  through 
charity,  Christs  to  every  man."    Ibid.,  11,  p.  197. 


206         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

to  be  careful,  because  I  have  come  to  the  insight  and  belief  that 
another  has  become  righteous  before  God  in  my  stead."1 

"  My  doctrine  stands  whatever  [my]  life  may  be."2 

"  Let  us  stick  to  the  true  Word  that  the  seat  of  Moses  may  be 
ours.  Even  should  our  manner  of  life  not  be  altogether  polished 
and  perfect,  yet  God  is  merciful ;   the  laity,  however,  hate  us."3 

"  Neither  would  it  be  a  good  thing  were  we  to  do  all  that  God 
commands,  for  in  that  case  He  would  be  cheated  of  His  Godhead, 
and  the  Our  Father,  faith,  the  article  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
etc.,  would  all  go  to  ruin.  God  would  be  made  a  liar.  He  would 
no  longer  be  the  one  and  only  truth,  and  every  man  would  not  be 
a  liar  [as  Scripture  says].  Should  any  man  say  :  '  If  this  is  so, 
God  will  be  but  little  served  on  earth  '  [I  reply]  :  He  is  accus- 
tomed to  that;    He  wills  to  be,  and  is,  a  God  of  great  mercy."* 

"  I  want  to  hand  over  a  downright  sinner  to  the  Judgment 
Seat  of  our  Lord  God  ;  for  though  I  myself  may  not  have  actually 
been  guilty  of  adultery,  still  that  has  not  been  for  lack  of  good- 
will."6— The  latter  phrase  was  a  saying  of  the  populace,  and  does 
not  in  the  least  mean  that  he  ever  really  had  the  intention  of 
committing  the  sin. 

"  I  confess  of  myself,"  he  says  in  a  sermon  in  1532,  "  and 
doubtless  others  must  admit  the  same  [of  themselves],  that  I 
lack  the  diligence  and  earnestness  of  which  really  I  ought  to  have 
much  more  than  formerly  ;  that  I  am  much  more  careless  than 
I  was  under  the  Papacy  ;  and  that  now,  under  the  Evangel, 
there  is  nowhere  the  same  zeal  to  be  found  as  before."  This  he 
declares  to  be  due  to  the  devil  and  to  people's  carelessness,  but 
not  to  his  teaching.6 

On  other  occasions  he  admits  of  his  party  as  a  whole, 
more  particularly  of  its  leaders,  viz.  the  theologians  and 
Princes,  that  they  fell  more  or  less  short  of  what  was  required 
for  a  Christian  life  ;  among  them  he  expressly  includes  him- 
self :  "  It  is  certain  with  regard  to  ourselves  and  our  Princes 
that  we  are  not  clean  and  holy,  and  the  Princes  have  vices 
of  their  own.  But  Christ  loves  a  frank  and  downright  con- 
fession."7 

Among  such  "  confessions "  made  by  Luther  we  find 
some  concerning  prayer. 

Comparing  the  present  with  the  past  he  says  :  "  People  are 
now  so  cold  and  pray  so  seldom  "  ;  this  he  seeks  to  explain  by 
urging  that  formerly  people  were  more  "  tormented  by  the 
devil."8     A  better  explanation  is  that  which  he  gave  in  his 

1  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  42. 

2  Veit  Dietrich,  in  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  139. 

3  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  179. 

4  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  209.  5  Ibid.,  p.  238. 

6  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  182,  p.  353. 

7  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  115.  8  Ibid.,  p.  95. 


HIS    INNER  LIFE  207 

Commentary  on  Galatians  :  "  For  the  more  confident  we  are  of 
the  freedom  Christ  has  won  for  us,  the  colder  and  lazier  we  are 
in  teaching  the  Word,  praying,  doing  good  and  enduring  contra- 
dictions."1 

We  possess  some  very  remarkable  and  even  spirited  exhorta- 
tions to  prayer  from  Luther's  pen  ;  on  occasion  he  would  also 
raise  his  own  voice  in  prayer  to  implore  God's  assistance  with 
feeling,  fervour  and  the  greatest  confidence,  particularly  when  in 
anxiety  and  trouble  about  his  undertaking.  (See  vol.  iv.,  xxv. 
3.)  He  refers  frequently  to  his  daily  prayer,  though  he  admits 
that  the  heretics,  i.e.  the  Anabaptists,  also  were  in  the  habit  of 
praying — in  their  own  way.  His  excessive  labours  and  the 
turmoil  of  his  life's  struggle  left  him,  however,  little  time  and 
quiet  for  prayer,  particularly  for  interior  prayer.  Besides,  he 
considered  the  canonical  hours  of  the  Catholics  mere  "  bawling," 
and  the  liturgical  devices  for  raising  the  heart  mere  imposture. 
During  the  latter  years  he  spent  in  the  cloister  outside  cares 
left  him  no  leisure  for  the  prayers  which  he  was,  as  a  religious, 
bound  to  recite.  Finally,  towards  the  end  of  his  life,  he  often 
enough  admits  that  his  prayers  were  cold.2  Frequently  he  was 
obliged  to  stimulate  his  ardour  for  prayer  as  well  as  work  by 
"  anger  and  zeal  "  ;3  "  for  no  man  can  say,"  as  he  puts  it,  "  how 
hard  a  thing  it  is  to  pray  from  the  heart."4 

Even  in  the  early  part  of  his  career  he  had  deliberately  and  on 
principle  excluded  one  important  sort  of  prayer,  viz.  prayer  for 
help  in  such  interior  trials  as  temptations  against  the  celibacy 
enjoined  by  the  religious  state,  which  he  came  to  persuade  himself 
was  an  impossibility  and  contrary  to  the  Will  of  God.  Then,  if 
ever,  did  he  stand  in  need  of  the  weapon  of  prayer,  but  we  read 
nowhere  in  his  letters,  written  in  that  gloomy  period,  of  his 
imploring  God  humbly  for  light  and  strength.  On  the  contrary, 
he  writes,  in  1521  :  "  What  if  this  prayer  is  not  according  to 
God's  Will,  or  if  He  does  not  choose  to  grant  it  when  it  is  addressed 
to  Him  ?  "  5  He  ironically  attacks  those  who  rightly  said  that  "  we 
must  implore  in  all  things  the  grace  of  God,  that  He  denies  it  to 
none,"  and,  that,  with  God's  grace,  it  was  possible  to  keep  the 
vows.  He  replies  to  "  these  simple  people  and  those  who  care 
nothing  for  souls  "  :  "  Excellent  !  Why  did  you  not  advise  St. 
Peter  to  ask  God  that  he  might  not  be  bound  by  Herod  ?  " 
"  That,"  he  says,  "is  to  make  a  mockery  of  serious  matters  " 
("  est  modus  ludendi  ")6 — a  censure  which  might  very  well  have 
been  flung  back  at  such  a  teacher  of  prayer. 

Seventeen  years  later  he  gave  the  following  advice  on  prayer  : 
"  We  must  not  curse,  that  is  true,  but  pray  we  must  that  God's 

1  "  Comment,  in  Gal.,"  ed.  Irmischer,  2,  p.  351. 

2  "  Brief e.,"  ed.  De  Wette,  5,  pp.  515,  566. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  58,  p.  428  f. 

4  Mathesius,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  178. 

5  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  8,  p.  631  ;  "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  6,  p.  321,  "  De 
votis  monasticis,"  1521. 

6  Ibid, 


208         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

name  be  hallowed  and  honoured,  and  the  Pope's  execrated  and 
cursed  together  with  his  god,  the  devil  ;  that  God's  Kingdom 
come,  and  that  End-Christ's  kingdom  perish.  Such  a  '  pater- 
nosteral  '  curse  may  well  be  breathed,  and  so  should  every 
Christian  pray."1  That  the  Pope  be  "cursed,  damned,  dis- 
honoured and  destroyed,  etc.,"  such  was  his  "  daily,  never- 
ending,  heartfelt  prayer,  as  it  was  of  all  those  who  believe  in 
Christ,"  so  he  assures  us,  "  and  I  feel  that  my  prayer  is  heard."2 
His  opinion  is  that  it  is  impossible  to  pray  for  anything  without 
"  cursing,"  i.e.  excluding  the  opposite.  "  Someone  asked  Dr. 
Martin  Luther  whether  he  who  prayed  thus  must  curse.  '  Yes,' 
he  replied,  'for  when  I  pray  "  Hallowed  be  Thy  Name,"  I  curse 
Erasmus  and  all  heretics  who  dishonour  and  blaspheme  God.'  "3 
His  anger  against  the  devil  often  broke  out  in  his  prayers. 
"  Though  I  cannot  read  or  write,"  he  writes  to  Melanchthon 
from  the  Coburg,  "I  can  still  think,  and  pray,  and  rage 
('  debacchari  ')  against  the  devil."4 

He  ought  to  "  offer  incense  to  God,"  he  complains  on  one 
occasion  in  1538  in  his  "  Table-Talk,"  but,  instead,  he  brings  Him 
"  stinking  pitch  and  devil's  ordure  by  his  murmuring  and  im- 
patience." "It  is  thus  that  I  frequently  worship  my  God.  .  .  . 
Had  we  not  the  article  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  which  God  has 
firmly  promised,  our  case  would  indeed  be  bad."5  Again  and 
again  does  he  cast  his  anchor  on  this  article  when  threatened  by 
the  storms. 

His  private,  non-polemical  religious  exercises  seem  to 
have  been  exceedingly  brief  :  "  I  have  to  do  violence  to 
myself  daily  in  order  to  pray,  and  I  am  satisfied  to  repeat, 
when  I  go  to  bed,  the  Ten  Commandments,  the  Our  Father 
and  then  a  verse  or  two  ;  while  thinking  these  over  I  fall 
asleep."6  Unusual,  and  at  the  same  time  peculiar,  were  the 
prayers  which  we  hear  of  his  offering  with  the  intention  of 
doing  some  wholesome  ill  to  his  neighbour,  or  even  of  bring- 
ing about  the  latter's  death  in  the  interests  of  the  Evangel. 
In  a  sermon  on  July  23,  1531,  after  reprimanding  certain 
Wittenberg  brewers,  who,  in  the  hope  of  adding  to  their 
profits,  were  accustomed  to  adulterate  their  beer,  he  says  : 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  252,  p.  254  f.  "  Rathschlag  von  der  Kirche," 
1538. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  3,  p.  470  ;  Erl.  ed.,  252,  p.  128,  at  the 
close  of  "  Widder  den  Meuchler  zu  Dresen,"  1531.  Cp.  Mathesius, 
"  Tischreden,"  p.  423. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  59,  p.  22,  "  Tischreden." 

4  Letter  of  July  31,  1530,  "  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  157. 

5  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  49. 

6  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  294.  Noted  in  the  winter  of  1542-3 
by  Heydenreich, 


HIS   INNER   LIFE  209 

"Unless  you  mend  your  ways,  we  shall  pray  that  your  malt 
may  turn  to  muck  and  sewage.    Don't  forget  that."1 

The  Christian's  life  of  faith  ought  not  merely  to  be  pene- 
trated with  the  spirit  of  prayer  but,  in  spite  of  all  crosses 
and  the  temptations  from  earthy  things,  to  move  along  the 
safe  path  of  peace  and  joy  of  heart.  Luther  must  have 
found  much  concerning  "  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost  " 
in  his  favourite  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  He  himself  says  : 
"  A  Christian  must  be  a  joyful  man.  .  .  .  Christ  says, 
4  Peace  be  with  you  ;  let  not  your  heart  be  troubled  :  have 
confidence,  I  have  overcome  the  world.'  It  is  the  will  of 
God  that  you  be  joyful." 

Of  himself,  however,  he  is  forced  to  add  :  "I  preach  and  write 
this,  but  I  have  not  yet  acquired  the  art  when  tempted  the  other 
way.  This  is  in  order  that  we  may  be  instructed,"  so  he  re- 
assures himself.  "  Were  we  always  at  peace,  the  devil  would 
get  the  better  of  us.  .  .  .  The  fact  is  we  are  not  equal  to  the  holy 
Fathers  in  the  matter  of  faith.  The  further  we  fall  short  of  them 
[this  is  another  of  his  consolations],  the  greater  is  the  victory 
Christ  will  win  ;  for  in  the  struggle  with  the  devil  we  are  the 
meanest,  most  stupid  of  foes,  and  he  has  a  great  advantage  over 
us.  .  .  .  Our  Lord  has  determined  to  bring  about  the  end  [the 
impending  end  of  all]  amidst  universal  foolishness."2  Thus, 
according  to  him,  the  victory  of  Christ  would  be  exalted  all 
the  more  by  the  absence  of  peace  and  joy  amongst  His  followers. 

What  do  we  see  of  pious  effort  on  his  part,  more  par- 
ticularly in  the  matter  of  preparation  for  the  sacraments, 
and  repressing  of  self  ? 

The  spiritual  life  was  to  him  a  passive  compliance  with 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  34,  2,  p.  21.  Certain  prayers  spoken  by- 
Luther  at  critical  moments,  which  appear  in  Protestant  biographies, 
more  particularly  the  older  ones,  are  purely  legendary.  So,  for  instance, 
his  solemn  prayer  at  Worms  :  "  O  God,  my  God,  stand  by  me  against 
all  the  wit  and  wisdom  of  the  world,"  etc.  (Uckert,  "  Luthers  Leben,"  2, 
Gotha,  1817,  p.  6,  and  also  in  Walch's  edition  of  Luther's  Works,  10, 
p.  1,720).  From  Melanchthon's  time  {ibid.,  21,  Nachl.  354)  and  that  of 
such  enthusiastic  pupils  of  Luther  as  Spangenberg,  it  became  the 
custom  to  extol  Luther  as  a  man  of  prayer.  Spangenberg  even 
declares  that  "  no  one  can  deny  "  that  Luther  during  his  lifetime 
"  checked  and  prevented  God's  chastisements,  wars  and  desolation  " 
by  means  of  his  "  Christian  prayers,  so  full  of  faith."  See  Preface  to 
his  "  Lutherus  Theander,"  No.  18.  A  certain  Protestant  theological 
periodical  assured  its  readers  quite  recently,  that  "  Luther  spent  three 
hours  of  his  working  day  in  prayer  "  ;  it  is  true  that  people  pray  even 
in  the  Roman  Church,  but  amid  much  "  superficiality  and  desecration." 

2  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  73  f.  (Khummer). 

III. — P 


210         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

the  faith  which  God  Himself  was  to  awaken  and  preserve 
in  the  heart. 

For  "  this  is  how  it  takes  place,"  he  says,  in  a  carefully  con- 
sidered instruction,  "  God's  Word  comes  to  me  without  any  co- 
operation on  my  part.  I  may,  it  is  true,  do  this  much,  go  and 
hear  it,  read  it,  or  preach  it,  so  that  it  may  sink  into  my  heart. 
And  this  is  the  real  preparation  which  lies  not  in  man's  powers 
and  ability,  but  in  the  power  of  God.  Hence  there  is  no  better 
preparation  on  our  part  for  all  the  sacraments  than  to  suffer 
God  to  work  in  us.    This  is  a  brief  account  of  the  preparation."1 

Yet  he  himself  perceived  the  peril  of  teaching  that  "  those 
people  were  fit  to  receive  the  sacrament  whose  hearts  had  been 
touched  by  the  Word  of  God  so  that  they  believed,  and  that 
whoever  did  not  feel  himself  thus  moved  should  remain  away." 
He  says  :  "I  remark  in  many,  myself  included,  how  the  evil 
spirit,  by  insisting  too  much  upon  the  right  side,  makes  people 
lazy  and  slow  to  receive  the  sacrament,  and  that  they  refuse  to 
come  unless  they  feel  assured  that  their  faith  has  been  enkindled. 
This  also  is  dangerous." 

Nevertheless  he  will  have  no  "  self -preparation  "  ;  such 
preparation,  "  by  means  of  one's  own  works,"  appeared  to  him 
Popish  ;  it  was  loathsome  to  God,  and  the  doctrine  of  "  faith 
alone  "  should  be  retained,  even  though  "  reason  be  unable  to 
understand  it."2  Hence  it  is  not  surprising  that  he  declared  it 
to  be  a  dreadful  "  error  and  abuse  "  that  we  should  venture  to 
prepare  ourselves  for  the  sacrament  by  our  own  efforts,  as  those 
do  who  strive  to  make  themselves  worthy  to  receive  the  sacra- 
ment by  confession  and  other  works."3 

He  storms  at  those  priests  who  require  contrition  from  the 
sinner  who  makes  his  confession  ;  his  opinion  is  that  they  are 
mad,  and  that,  instead  of  the  keys,  they  were  better  able  to  wield 
pitchforks.4  Even  "were  Christ  Himself  to  come  and  speak  to 
you  as  He  did  to  Moses  and  say,  '  What  hast  thou  done  ?  '  kill 
Him  on  the  spot."6  "  Contrition  only  gives  rise  to  despair,  and 
insults  God  more  than  it  appeases  Him."6  Such  language  may 
be  explained  by  the  fact,  that,  in  his  theory,  contrition  is  merely 
consternation  and  terror  at  God's  wrath  produced  by  the  accusa- 
tions of  the  law  ;  the  troubled  soul  ought  really  to  take  refuge 
behind  the  Gospel. — How  entirely  different  had  been  the  prepara- 
tion recommended  by  the  Church  in  previous  ages  for  the  recep- 
tion of  the  sacraments  !  She  indeed  enjoined  contrition,  but  as 
an  interior  act  issuing  in  love  and  leading  to  the  cleansing  of  the 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  II2,  p.  245,  in  the  Sermon  for  Easter  Monday, 
1525. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  243  f.  3  Ibid.,  p.  244. 

4  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  4,  p.  658. 

5  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  207. 

6  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  630  f.  ;  "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  1,  p.  378  seq. 
in  Concl.,  3  seq.  (of  1518).  Passages  in  which  he  advocates  contrition 
will,  however,  be  quoted  below.     Cp.  vol.  i.,  p.  293. 


STANDARDISED   MEDIOCRITY      211 

soul.  According  to  Luther,  however,  excessive  purity  of  soul 
was  not  advisable,  and  only  led  to  presumption.  "  The  devil 
is  a  holy  fellow,"  he  had  said,  "  and  has  no  need  of  Christ  and 
His  Grace  "  ;    "  Christ  dwells  only  in  sinners." 

On  the  other  hand,  in  many  fine  passages,  he  recommends  self- 
denial  and  mortification  as  a  check  upon  concupiscence.  He 
even  uses  the  word  "  mortificare,"  and  insists  that,  till  our  last 
breath,  we  must  not  cease  to  dread  the  "forties  "  of  the  flesh  and 
dishonourable  temptations.  He  alone  walks  safely,  so  he  re- 
peatedly affirms,  who  keeps  his  passions  under  the  dominion  of 
the  Spirit,  suffers  injustice,  resists  the  attacks  of  pride,  and  at  the 
same  time  holds  his  body  in  honour  as  the  chaste  temple  of  God 
by  denying  it  much  that  its  evil  lusts  desire. 

Luther  himself,  however,  does  not  seem  to  have  been  over- 
much given  to  mortification,  whether  of  the  senses  or  of  the  inner 
man.  He  was  less  notable  for  his  earnest  efforts  to  restrain  the 
passions  than  for  that  "  openness  to  all  the  world  had  to  offer," 
and  that  "  readiness  to  taste  to  the  full  the  joy  of  living,"  which 
his  followers  admire.  Not  only  was  he  averse  to  penitential 
exercises,  but  he  even  refused  to  regulate  his  diet  :  "I  eat  just 
what  I  like  and  bear  the  pains  afterwards  as  best  I  can."  "  To 
live  by  the  doctor's  rule  is  to  live  wretchedly."  "  I  cannot 
comply  with  the  precautions  necessary  to  ensure  health  ;  later  on, 
remedies  may  do  what  they  can."1  "  I  don't  consult  the  doctors, 
for  I  don't  mean  to  embitter  the  one  year  of  life  which  they 
allow  me,  and  I  prefer  to  eat  and  drink  in  God's  name  what  I 
fancy."2  With  his  reference  to  his  "  tippling  "  and  the  "  Good 
drink  "  we  shall  deal  at  greater  length  below,  in  section  5. 

The  aim  of  Luther's  ethics,  as  is  plain  from  the  above,  did 
not  rise  above  the  level  of  mediocrity.  His  practice,  to 
judge  from  what  has  been  already  said,  involved  the  re- 
nunciation of  any  effort  after  the  attainment  of  eminent 
virtue.  It  may,  however,  be  questioned  whether  he  was 
really  true  even  to  the  low  standard  he  set  himself. 

There  is  a  certain  downward  tendency  in  the  system  of 
mediocrity  which  drags  one  ever  lower.  Such  a  system 
carries  with  it  the  rejection  of  all  effort  to  become  ever  more 
and  more  pleasing  to  God,  such  as  religion  must  necessarily 
foster  if  it  is  to  realise  its  vocation,  and  to  which  those 
countless  souls  who  were  capable  of  higher  things  have, 
under  the  influence  of  Divine  grace,  ever  owed  their  progress. 
The  indispensable  and  noblest  dowry  of  true  piety  is  the 
moulding  of  spiritual  heroes,  of  men  capable  of  overcoming 
the  world  and  all  material  things.    Thousands  of  less  highly 

1  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  pp.  33,  51. 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  61,  p.  435  ("  Tischreden  "). 


212         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

endowed  souls,  under  the  impulse  from  above,  hasten  to  follow 
them,  seeking  the  glory  of  God,  and  comfort  amidst  the 
troubles  of  life,  in  religion  and  the  zealous  practice  of  virtue. 
Mighty  indeed,  when  transformed  by  them  into  glowing 
deeds,  were  the  watchwords  of  the  Church's  Saints  :  'I 
was  born  for  higher  things,"  "  All  for  the  greater  glory  of 
God,"  "  Conquer  thyself,"  "  Suffer  and  fight  with  courage 
and  confidence." 

On  the  other  hand,  the  system  of  mediocrity,  organised 
yielding  to  weakness,  and  the  setting  up  of  the  lowest  possible 
ethical  standard,  could  not  be  expected  to  furnish  Luther 
and  his  disciples  with  any  very  high  religious  motive.  Even 
in  the  ordinary  domain  of  Christian  life  Luther's  too  easy 
and  over-confident  doctrine  of  the  appropriation  of  the 
satisfaction  made  by  Christ,  sounds  very  different  from  our 
Saviour's  exhortations  :  "  Do  penance,  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  at  hand  "  ;  "  Whoever  will  come  after  Me,  let  him 
deny  himself  "  ;  "  Whoever  does  not  take  up  his  cr,oss  and 
follow  Me  cannot  be  My  disciple  "  ;  or  from  those  of  St.  Paul 
who  said  of  himself,  that  the  world  was  crucified  to  him  and 
he  to  the  world;  or  from  those  of  St.  Peter:  "Seeing 
that  Christ  suffered  in  the  flesh,  arm  yourselves  with 
the  like  mind."  "  Do  penance  and  be  converted, 
that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out."  What  Scripture 
requires  of  the  faithful  is  not  blind,  mechanical  confidence 
in  the  merits  of  Christ  as  a  cloak  for  our  sins,  but  "  fruits 
worthy  of  penance."  In  the  long  list  of  Luther's  works  we 
seek  in  vain  for  a  commentary  which  brings  these  solemn 
statements  on  penance  before  the  mind  of  the  reader  with 
the  emphasis  hitherto  habitual.  Even  were  such  a  com- 
mentary forthcoming,  the  living  commentary  of  his  own 
life,  which  is  the  seal  of  the  preacher's  words,  would  still 
be  wanting. 

On  another  point,  viz.  zeal  for  the  souls  of  others,  we  see 
no  less  clearly  how  far  Luther  was  removed  from  the  ideal. 
True  zeal  for  souls  embraces  all  without  exception,  more 
particularly  those  who  have  gone  astray  and  who  must  be 
brought  to  see  the  light  and  to  be  saved.  Luther,  on  the 
other  hand,  again  and  again  restricts  most  curiously  the 
circle  to  whom  his  Evangel  is  to  be  preached  ;  the  wide 
outlook  of  the  great  preachers  of  the  faith  in  the  Church 
of  olden  days  was  not  his. 


LACK  OF  MISSIONARY   ZEAL       213 

"  Three  classes  do  not  belong  to  the  Evangel  at  all,"  he  had 
said,  "  and  to  them  we  do  not  preach.  .  .  .  Away  with  the  dis- 
solute swine."  The  three  classes  thus  stigmatised  were,  first  the 
"  rude  hearts,"  who  "  will  not  accept  the  Evangel  nor  observe  its 
behests  "  ;  secondly,  "  coarse  knaves  steeped  in  great  vices," 
who  would  not  allow  themselves  to  be  bitten  by  the  Evangel  ; 
thirdly,  "  the  worst  of  all,  who,  beyond  this,  even  dare  to  persecute 
the  Evangel."  The  Evangel  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  intended  only 
for  "simple  souls  .  .  .  and  to  none  other  have  we  preached."1 
This  explains  why  Luther  long  cherished  the  idea  of  forming 
a  kind  of  esoteric  Church,  or  community  consisting  simply  of 
religiously  disposed  faithful ;  unfortunately  "  he  did  not  find 
such  people,"2  for  most  were  content  to  neglect  both  Church  and 
Sacraments. 

The  older  Church  had  exhorted  all  who  held  a  cure  of  souls  to 
be  zealous  in  seeking  out  such  as  had  become  careless  or  hostile. 
When,  however,  someone  asked  Luther,  in  1540,  how  to  behave 
towards  those  who  had  never  been  inside  a  church  for  about 
twenty  years,  he  replied  :  "  Let  them  go  to  the  devil,  and,  when 
they  die,  pitch  them  on  the  manure-heap." 

The  zeal  for  souls  displayed  by  Luther  was  zeal  for  his  own 
peculiar  undertaking,  viz.  for  the  Evangel  which  he  preached. 
Zeal  for  the  general  spread  of  the  kingdom  of  God  amongst  the 
faithful,  and  amongst  those  still  sunk  in  unbelief,  was  with  him 
a  very  secondary  consideration. 

In  reality  his  zeal  was  almost  exclusively  directed  against  the 
Papacy. 

The  idea  of  a  universal  Church,  which  just  then  was 
inspiring  Catholics  to  undertake  the  enormous  missionary 
task  of  converting  the  newly  discovered  continents,  stood, 
in  Luther's  case,  very  much  in  the  background. 

Though,  in  part,  this  may  be  explained  by  his  struggle  for 
the  introduction  of  the  innovations  into  those  portions  of 
Germany  nearest  to  him,  yet  the  real  reason  was  his  surrender 
of  the  old  ecclesiastical  ideal,  his  transformation  of  the 
Church  into  an  invisible  kingdom  of  souls  devoted  to  the 
Evangel,  and  his  destruction  of  the  older  conception  of 
Christendom  with  its  two  hinges,  viz.  the  Papacy  established 
for  the  spiritual  and  the  Empire  for  the  temporal  welfare  of 
the  family  of  nations.  He  saw  little  beyond  Saxony,  the 
land  favoured  by  the  preaching  of  the  new  Gospel,  and 
Germany,  to  which  he  had  been  sent  as  a  "  prophet-."  The 
Middle  Ages,  though  so  poor  in  means  of  communication  and 
geographical  knowledge,   compared  with  that  age  of  dis- 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  II2,  p.  245  f.    Cp.  p.  210,  n.  1, 

2  Above,  p.  24  ff .  and  vol.  v.,  xxix.  8. 


214         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

covery,  was,  thanks  to  its  great  Catholic,  i.e.  world- 
embracing  ideas,  inspired  with  an  enthusiasm  for  the  king- 
dom of  God  which  found  no  place  in  the  ideals  of  Lutheran- 
ism.  We  may  compare,  for  instance,  the  heroic  efforts  of 
those  earlier  days  to  stem  the  incursions  of  the  Eastern 
infidel  with  the  opinion  expressed  by  the  Wittenberg 
professor  on  the  war  against  the  Crescent,  where  he  declared 
the  resistance  offered  in  the  name  of  Christendom  to  the 
Turks  to  be  "  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  an 
opinion  which  he  continued  to  hold,  in  spite  of,  or  perhaps 
rather  because  of,  its  condemnation  by  the  Pope  (p.  76  ff., 
and  p.  92).  We  may  contrast  the  eloquent  appeals  of  the 
preachers  of  the  Crusades — inspired  by  the  danger  which 
threatened  from  the  East — for  the  delivery  of  the  Holy  Land 
and  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  with  Luther's  statement  quoted 
above,  that  God  troubled  as  little  about  the  Tomb  at 
Jerusalem  as  He  did  about  the  Swiss  cows  (p.  168).  In 
Luther's  thoughts  the  boundaries  of  the  Christian  world 
have  suddenly  become  much  less  extensive  than  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  whilst  ecclesiastical  interests,  thanks  to  the 
new  territorial  rights  of  the  Princes,  tend  to  be  limited  by 
the  frontiers  of  the  petty  States.1 

The  stormy  nature  of  the  work  on  which  his  energies 
were  spent  could  not  fail  to  impress  on  his  personal  character 
a  stamp  of  its  own.  In  considering  Luther's  ethical  peculi- 
arities, we  are  not  at  liberty  to  pass  over  in  silence  the 
feverish  unrest — so  characteristic  of  him  and  so  unlike  the 
calm  and  joyous  determination  evinced  by  true  messengers 
sent  by  God — the  blind  and  raging  vehemence,  which  not 
only  suited  the  violence  of  his  natural  disposition,  but  which 
he  constantly  fostered  by  his  actions.  "  The  Lord  is  not  in 
the  storm  " ;  these  words,  found  in  the  history  of  the  Prophet 
Elias,  do  not  seem  to  have  been  Luther's  subject  of  medita- 
tion. He  himself,  characteristically  enough,  speaks  of  his 
life-work  as  one  long  "  tally-ho."  He  was  never  content 
save  when  worrying  others  or  being  worried  himself  ;    he 

1  Cp.  G.  Kawerau,  "  Warum  fehlte  der  deutschen  evang.  Kirche  des 
16.  u.  17.  Jahrh.  das  voile  Verstandnis  fur  d.  Missionsgedanken  der 
H.  Schrift  ?  Vortrag,"  Breslau,  1896.  The  author  says  that  "none 
of  the  reformers  "  found  in  Holy  Scripture  the  duty  of  missionary 
effort  on  the  part  of  Christendom  ;  an  exception  must,  however,  be 
made  in  the  case  of  Bucer.  See  N.  P(aulus)  in  the  "  Hist.  Jahrb.," 
18,  1897,  p.  199. 


HIS  HOME-CIRCLE  215 

always  required  some  object  which  he  could  pull  to  pieces, 
whereas  true  men  of  God  are  accustomed  to  proceed  quietly, 
according  to  a  fixed  plan,  and  in  the  light  of  some  great 
supernatural  principle.  With  Luther  excitement,  con- 
fusion and  war  were  a  second  nature.  "  The  anger  and  rage 
of  my  enemies  is  my  joy  and  delight,  in  spite  of  all  their 
attempts  to  take  it  from  mc  and  defraud  me  of  it.  .  .  .  To 
hell-fire  with  such  flowers  and  fruits,  for  that  is  where  they 
belong!"1 

If,  after  listening  to  utterances  such  as  the  above,  we 
proceed  to  visit  Luther  in  his  domestic  circle — as  we  shall 
in  the  next  section — we  may  well  be  surprised  at  the  totally 
different  impression  given  by  the  man.  In  the  midst  of  his 
own  people  Luther  appears  in  a  much  more  peaceable  guise. 

He  sought  to  fulfil  his  various  duties  as  father  of  the 
family,  towards  his  children,  the  servants  and  the  numerous 
guests  who  lived  in  or  frequented  his  house,  whether  relatives 
or  others,  so  far  as  his  occupations  permitted.  He  was 
affable  in  his  intercourse  with  them,  sympathetic,  benevolent 
and  kind-hearted  towards  those  who  required  his  help,  and 
easily  satisfied  with  his  material  circumstances.  All  these 
and  many  other  redeeming  points  in  his  character  will  be 
treated  of  more  in  detail  later.  It  is  true  that  the  ceaseless 
labours  to  which  he  gave  himself  up  caused  him  to  overlook 
many  abuses  at  his  home  which  were  apparent  to  others. 

The  unrest,  noise  and  bustle  which  reigned  in  Luther's  house, 
were,  at  a  later  date,  objected  to  by  many  outsiders.  George 
Held  wrote  in  1542  to  George  of  Anhalt,  who  had  thought  of 
taking  up  his  abode  with  Luther,  to  dissuade  him  from  doing  so  : 
"  Luther's  house  is  tenanted  by  a  miscellaneous  crowd  ('  miscel- 
lanea et  promiscua  turba  ')  of  students,  girls,  widows,  old  women 
and  beardless  boys,  hence  great  unrest  prevails  there  ;  many 
good  men  are  distressed  at  this  on  account  of  the  Reverend 
Father  [Luther].  Were  all  animated  by  Luther's  spirit,  then 
his  house  would  prove  a  comfortable  and  pleasant  abode  for 
you  for  a  few  days,  and  you  would  have  an  opportunity  of  enjoy- 
ing his  familiar  discourses,  but,  seeing  how  his  house  is  at  present 
conducted,  I  would  not  advise  you  to  take  up  your  quarters 
there."2 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  23,  p.  33  ;  Erl.  ed.,  30,  p.  9.  "  Against 
the  King  of  England,"  1527. 

2  Letter  of  February  23,  1542,  in  Kolde,  "  Anal.  Lutherana,"  p. 
378. 


216         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

Many  of  Luther's  friends  and  acquaintances  were  also  dis- 
satisfied with  Catherine  Bora,  because  of  a  certain  sway  she 
seemed  to  exercise  over  Luther,  even  outside  the  family  circle, 
in  matters  both  great  and  small.  In  a  passage  which  was  not 
made  public  until  1907  we  find  Johann  Agricola  congratulating 
himself,  in  1544,  on  Luther's  favourable  disposition  towards 
him  :  "  Domina  Ketha,  the  arbitress  of  Heaven  and  Earth,  who 
rules  her  husband  as  she  pleases,  has,  for  once,  put  in  a  good 
word  on  my  behalf."1  The  assertion  of  Caspar  Cruciger,  a  friend 
of  the  family,  where  he  speaks  of  Catherine  as  the  "  firebrand  in 
the  house,"  and  also  the  report  given  to  the  Elector  by  the 
Chancellor  Briick,  who  accuses  her  of  a  domineering  spirit,  were 
already  known  before.2  Luther's  own  admissions,  to  which  we 
shall  return  later,  plainly  show  that  there  was  some  tiut'i  in 
these  complaints.  The  latest  Protestant  to  write  the  Ufa  of 
Catherine  Bora,  after  pointing  out  that  she  was  vivacious, 
garrulous  and  full  of  hatred  for  her  husband's  enemies,  says  : 
"  The  influence  of  such  a  temperament,  united  with  such  strength 
of  character,  could  not  fail  to  be  evil  rather  than  good,  and  for 
this  both  wife  and  husband  suffered.  .  .  .  We  cannot  but  allow 
that  Katey  at  times  exerted  a  powerful  influence  over  Luther." 
Particularly  in  moving  him  in  the  direction  in  which  he  was 
already  leaning,  "her  power  over  him  was  great."3 

Luther's  son  Hans  was  long  a  trial  to  the  family,  and  his 
father  occasionally  vents  his  ire  on  the  youth  for  his  disobedience 
and  laziness.  He  finally  sent  him  to  Torgau,  where  he  might  be 
more  carefully  trained  and  have  his  behaviour  corrected.  Hans 
seems  to  have  been  spoilt  by  his  mother.  Later  on  she  spoke  of 
him  as  untalented,  and  asa"  silly  fellow,"  who  would  be  laughed 
at  were  he  to  enter  the  Chancery  of  the  Elector."4  A  niece, 
Magdalene  Kaufmann,  whom  Luther  brought  up  in  his  house 
together  with  two  other  young  relatives,5  was  courted  by  Veit 
Dietrich,  one  of  Luther's  pupils,  who  also  boarded  with  him. 
This  was,  however,  discountenanced  by  the  master  of  the  house, 
who  declared  that  the  wench  "  was  not  yet  sufficiently  educated." 
Luther  was  annoyed  at  her  want  of  obedience  and  ended  by 
telling  her  that,  should  she  not  prove  more  tractable,  he  would 
marry  her  to  a  "  grimy  charcoal-burner."  His  opposition  to  the 
match  with  Dietrich  brought  about  strained  relations  between 
himself  and  one  who  had  hitherto  been  entirely  devoted  to  him. 
Dietrich  eventually  found  another  partner  and  was  congratulated 
by  Luther.  Magdalene,  with  Luther's  consent,  married,  first, 
Ambrose  Berndt,  an  official  of  the  University,  and,  after  his 
death  in  1541,  accepted  the  proposal  of  Reuchlin,  a  young 
physician  only  twenty  years  of  age,  whom  she  married  in  spite 

1  "  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken,"  1907,  p.  246  f.     Art.  by  E.  Thiele 
on  some  Notes  of  Joh.  Agricola's  in  a  Hebrew  Bible  at  Wernigerode. 

2  "  Corp.  ref.,"  5,  p.  313  seq.    The  passage  will  be  given  later. 

3  G.  Kroker,  "  Katharina  von  Bora,"  Leipzig,  1906,  p.  282. 

4  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  484. 

*  See  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  2. 


THE   TABLE-TALK  217 

of  Luther's  displeasure.  With  her  restlessness  she  had  sorely- 
troubled  the  peace  of  the  household.1 

Other  complaints  were  due  to  the  behaviour  of  Hans  Polner, 
the  son  of  Luther's  sister,  who  was  studying  theology,  but  who 
nevertheless  frequently  returned  home  the  worse  for  drink  and 
was  given  to  breaking  out  into  acts  of  violence. 2  Another  nephew, 
Fabian  Kaufmann,  seems  to  have  been  the  culprit  who  caused 
Luther  to  grumble  that  someone  in  his  own  house  had  been 
secretly  betrothed  at  the  very  time  when,  in  his  bitter  con- 
troversy with  the  lawyers,  he  was  denouncing  such  "  clandestine 
marriages"  as  invalid.3  Finally,  one  of  the  servant-girls,  named 
Rosina,  gave  great  scandal  by  her  conduct,  concerning  which 
Luther  has  some  strong  things  to  say  in  his  letters.4 

The  quondam  Augustinian  priory  at  Wittenberg,  which  has 
often  been  praised  as  the  ideal  of  a  Protestant  parsonage,  fell 
considerably  short,  in  point  of  fact,  even  of  Luther's  own  standard. 
There  lacked  the  supervision  demanded  by  the  freedom  accorded 
to  the  numerous  inmates,  whether  relatives  or  boarders,  of  the 
famous  "  Black  monastery." 

4.   The  Table-Talk  and  the  First  Notes  of  the  same 

At  the  social  gatherings  of  his  friends  and  pupils,  Luther 
was  fond  of  giving  himself  up  unrestrainedly  to  mirth  and 
jollity.  His  genius,  loquacity  and  good-humour  made  him  a 
"  merry  boon  companion,"  whose  society  was  much  appreci- 
ated. Often,  it  is  true,  he  was  very  quiet  and  thoughtful. 
His  guests  little  guessed,  nay,  perhaps  he  himself  was  not 
fully  aware,  how  often  his  cheerfulness  and  lively  sallies 
were  due  to  the  desire  to  repress  thereby  the  sad  and 
anxious  thoughts  which  troubled  him. 

Liveliness  and  versatility,  imagination  and  inventiveness, 
a  good  memory  and  a  facile  tongue  were  some  of  the  gifts 
with  which  nature  had  endowed  him.  To  these  already 
excellent  qualities  must  be  added  that  depth  of  feeling 
which  frequently  finds  expression  in  utterances  of  sur- 
prising beauty  interspersed  among  his  more  profane  sayings. 
Unfortunately,  owing  to  his  incessant  conflicts  and  to  the 
trivialities  to  which  his  pen  and  tongue  were  so  prone, 
this  better  side  of  his  character  did  not  emerge  as  fully  as 
it  deserved. 

In  order  to  become  better  acquainted  with  the  conditions 

1  Enders,  "  Luthers  Brief wechsel,"  10,  p.  286.  Kostlin-Kawerau, 
2,  p.  485  #eq.     Rebenstock,  2,  p.  20. 

2  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  ed.  Kroker,  p.  141. 

3  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  569. 

4  On  this  girl,  see  below,  p.  280  f. 


218         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

amid  which  Luther  lived  at  Wittenberg,  we  must  betake 
ourselves  to  a  room  in  the  former  Augustinian  convent, 
where  we  shall  find  him  seated,  after  the  evening  meal, 
amidst  friends  such  as  Melanchthon,  Bugenhagen  and 
Jonas,  surrounded  by  eager  students — for  the  most  part 
boarders  in  his  house,  the  former  "  Black  monastery  " — and 
strangers  who  had  travelled  to  the  little  University  town 
attracted  by  the  fame  of  the  Evangel.  There  it  is  that  he 
imparts  his  views  and  relates  his  interior  experiences  in  all 
confidence.  He  was  perfectly  aware  that  what  he  said  was 
being  noted  down,  and  sometimes  suggested  that  one 
saying  or  the  other  should  be  carefully  committed  to 
writing.1  The  older  group  of  friends  (1529-1535),  to  whom 
we  owe  relations  of  the  Table-Talk,  comprised  Conrad 
Cordatus,  Veit  Dietrich,  Johann  Schlaginhaufen,  Anton 
Lauterbach,  Hieronymus  Weller  and  Anton  Corvinus ; 
such  of  these  as  remained  with  him  from  1536  to  1539 
form  the  middle  group  ;  the  last  (1540-1546)  was  chiefly 
made  up  of  Johann  Mathesius,  Caspar  Heydenreich, 
Hieronymus  Besold,  Master  Plato,  Johann  Stoltz  and  Johann 
Aurifaber.  Apart  from  these  there  were  a  few  who  came 
into  close,  personal  contact  with  Luther,  for  instance, 
George  Rorer,  who  assisted  him  in  translating  the  Bible 
and  who  is  one  of  Aurifaber's  authorities  for  the  Table-Talk.2 

1  E.g.  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichn.,"  p.  82. 

2  For  biographical  data  concerning  these,  see  Kroker,  "  Luthers 
Tischreden  in  der  Mathesischen  Sammlung,"  Einl.,  p.  8  ff.  For  Rorer's 
Collections  of  the  Table-talk,  etc.,  cp.  G.  Koffmane,  "  Die  hds.  Uber- 
lieferung  von  Werken  Luthers,"  1907,  p.  xviii.  ff.,  and  Kroker,  "Rorers 
Handschriftenbande  und  Luthers  Tischreden  "  ("  Archiv.  f.  Reforma- 
tionsgesch,"  5,  1908,  p.  337  ff.,  and  7,  1910,  p.  57  ff.).  Among  the  occa- 
sional guests  was  Ch.  Gross,  Magistrate  at  Wittenberg,  who  is  mentioned 
in  Luther's  letters  (De  Wette,  5,  p.  410)  in  1541  as  "  praefectus  wo.s£er." 
In  his  Catholic  days  the  last  had  served  for  three  years  as  one  of  the 
bearers  of  the  Pope's  sedan  ;  a  great  traveller,  he  was  noted  as  an 
excellent  conversationalist  and  a  thorough  man  of  the  world.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  he  reported  to  Luther  many  of  the  malicious  and 
unveracious  tales  current  of  Roman  morals,  which  the  latter  made  use 
of  in  his  attacks  on  Popery.  Cp.  with  regard  to  him  "  Colloq.,"  ed. 
Bindseil,  3,  p.  424,  and  1,  p.  372  (where  accounts,  probably  by  him, 
follow),  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  431  ("  Tischreden  ").  He  makes 
unseemly  jests  on  the  Latin  word  for  "  art,"  and  it  appears  highly 
probable  that  he  was  the  "  M.  Christo,"  whom  we  meet  with  in  Kroker, 
p.  175,  n.  287,  in  Luther's  Table-Talk  of  1540,  whose  "  calida  natura  " 
is  mentioned  in  excuse  of  a  love  affair.  .  This  gives  an  answer  to  Kroker's 
question  :  "  Who  is  this  Magister  Christophorus  ?  "  We  learn  from 
Bindseil's  "  Colloquia  "  that  Christopher  Gross  was  anxious  to  become 
a  widower  because  his  wife  was  a  "  vetula." 


THE   TABLE-TALK  219 

In  his  twelfth  Sermon  on  the  "  Historien  von  des 
ehrwiirdigen  .  .  .  Manns  Gottes  Martini  Lutheri,"  etc., 
Mathesius  was  later  on  to  write  that  he  had  enjoyed  at  his 
table  "  many  good  colloquies  and  chats  "  and  had  tasted 
"  much  excellent  stuff  in  the  shape  of  writings  and  counsels."1 
Luther  himself  refers  incidentally  to  these  social  evenings 
in  his  famous  saying,  that,  while  he  "  drank  Wittenberg 
beer  with  his  friends  Philip  and  Amsdorf,"  God,  by  his 
means,  had  weakened  the  Papacy  and  brought  it  nigh  to 
destruction.2  The  wine  was  drunk — at  least  on  solemn 
occasions — from  the  famous  bowl  known  as  the  "  Catechis- 
musglas,"  on  which  were  painted  in  sections,  placed  one 
below  the  other  and  separated  by  three  ridges,  various 
portions  of  Christian  doctrine  :  at  the  top  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments, in  the  middle  the  Creed  and  Our  Father,  and 
at  the  bottom  the  whole  Catechism  (probably  the  super- 
scriptions and  numbers  of  the  questions  in  the  Catechism). 
We  read  in  the  Table-Talk,  that,  on  one  occasion,  Johann 
Agricola  could  get  only  as  far  as  the  Ten  Commandments 
at  one  draught,  whereas  Luther  was  able  to  empty  the  bowl 
right  off  down  to  the  very  dregs,  i.e.  "  Catechism  and 
all."3 

For  Luther's  sayings  given  in  what  follows  we  have  made 
use  of  the  so-called  original  versions  of  the  Table-Talk  recently 
edited  by  various  Protestant  scholars,  viz.  the  Diaries  of 
Lauterbach  and  Cordatus,  the  notes  of  Schlaginhaufen  and 
the  Collections  made  by  Mathesius  and  found  in  the 
"  Aufzeichnungen  "  edited  by  Loesche  and  in  the  "  Tisch- 
reden  (Mathesius)  "  published  more  recently  still  by  Kroker, 
the  Leipzig  librarian.4 

1  "  Historien,"  Nuremberg,  1566,  p.  139. 

2  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  3,  p.  18;  Erl.  ed„  28,  p.  260.  The 
passage  was  omitted  in  the  later  Luther  editions ;  cp.  ibid.,  p.  18  =  219  f. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  58,  p.  337. 

4  For  the  full  titles  of  the  publications  referred  to  here  and  elsewhere 
under  an  abbreviated  form  as  "  Tagebuch,"  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  etc., 
see  the  Bibliography  at  the  commencement  of  vol.  i.  of  the  present  work. 
Besides  these  collections  heed  must  be  paid  to  the  old  German  Table- 
Talk  in  the  Erlangen  edition  ("  Werke,"  57-62)  and  the  Latin  Table- 
Talk  in  Bindseil.  Only  exceptionally  do  we  quote  the  other  editions,  such 
as  the  Latin  one  by  Rebenstock,  and  the  older  and  more  recent  German 
editions  of  Forstemann  and  Bindseil.  Moreover,  the  Table-Talk  in 
most  cases  merely  serves  to  prove  that  this  or  that  idea  was  ex- 
pressed more  or  less  in  the  language  recorded,  not  that  Luther 
actually  uttered  every  word  of  it.  The  historical  circumstances  under 
which  the  words  were  uttered  are  in  most  cases  unknown.     Kroker's 


220         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

The  objection  has  frequently  been  raised  that  the  Table- 
Talk  ought  not  to  be  made  use  of  as  a  reliable  source  of 
information  for  the  delineation  of  Luther's  person.  It  is, 
however,  remarkable  that  the  chapters  which  are  favourable 
to  Luther  are  referred  to  and  exploited  in  Protestant 
histories,  only  that  which  is  disagreeable  being  usually 
excluded  as  historically  inaccurate.  The  fact  is  that  we 
have  merely  to  comply  conscientiously  with  the  rules  of 
historical  criticism  when  utilising  the  information  contained 
in  the  Table-Talk,  which,  owing  to  its  fulness  and  variety, 
never  fails  to  rivet  attention.  These  rules  suggest  that  we 
should  give  the  preference  to  those  statements  which  recur 
frequently  under  a  similar  form  ;  that  we  should  not  take 
mere  questions,  put  forward  by  Luther  simply  to  invite 
discussion  and  correction,  as  conveying  his  real  thought ; 
that  we  consult  the  original  notes,  if  possible  those  made  at 
the  time  of  the  conversation,  and  that,  where  there  is  a 
discrepancy  between  the  accounts  (a  rare  occurrence),  we 
should  prefer  those  which  date  from  before  the  time  when 
Luther's  pupils  arranged  and  classified  his  sayings  according 
to  subjects.  The  chronological  arrangement  of  Luther's 
sayings  has  thereby  suffered,  and  here  and  there  the  text 
has  been  altered.  For  this  reason  the  Latin  tradition, 
as  we  have  it,  for  instance,  from  Lauterbach's  pen,1  ranks 
before  the  German  version,  which  is  of  slightly  later 
date.  Kroker's  new  edition,  when  complete,  promises  to 
be  the  best. 

If  the  rules  of  historical  criticism  are  followed  in  this 
and  other  points  there  is  no  reason  why  the  historian 
should  not  thankfully  avail  himself  of  this  great  fount  of 
information,  which  the  first  collectors  themselves  extolled 
as  the  most  valuable  authority  on  the  spirit  of  their  master 
"  of  pious  and  holy  memory,"2  and  as  likely  to  prove  both 
instructive  and  edifying  to  a  later  generation.      The  doubt 

publication  has  been  of  great  service  in  determining  the  dates  of  the 
various  collections.  As  regards  the  present  position  of  the  investigation 
of  the  sources  whence  the  Table-Talk  is  derived,  see  Kostlin-Kawerau, 
2,  pp.  479-481,  and  P.  Smith,  "Luther's  Table-Talk,"  New  York,  1907, 
which  sums  up  the  results  arrived  at  in  Germany. 

1  Cp.  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  xxxxviii.  scq.,  and  Kroker,  p.  9. 

2  See  the  title  of  Rebenstock's  Collection.  Rebenstock's  assurance 
that,  in  his  Collection  he  sought  nothing  but  the  honour  of  God  and 
had  not  introduced  any  extraneous  matter,  is  reprinted  in  Bindseil,  1, 
p.  lii. 


THE   TABLE-TALK  221 

as  to  the  reliability  of  the  notes  has  been  well  answered  by 
Kroker  :  "  Such  distrust,  so  far  as  the  original  documents 
are  concerned,  can  now  no  longer  stand.  In  his  rendering 
of  Luther's  words  Mathesius,  and  likewise  Heydenreich, 
Besold  and  Weller,  whose  notes  his  Collection  also  embodies, 
does  not  differ  substantially  from  the  older  table  companions, 
Dietrich,  Schlaginhaufen  and  Lauterbach.  All  these  men 
did  their  utmost  to  render  Luther's  sayings  faithfully  and 
to  the  best  of  their  knowledge  and  ability."1 

The  spontaneous  character  of  the  Table-Talk  gives  it 
a  peculiar  value  of  its  own.  "  These  [conversations]  are 
children  of  the  passing  moment,  reliable  witnesses  to  the 
prevailing  mood  "  (Adolf  Hausrath).  In  intercourse  with 
intimates  our  ideas  and  feelings  express  themselves  much 
more  spontaneously  and  naturally  than  where  the  pen  of  the 
letter-writer  is  being  guided  by  reflection,  and  seeks  to  make 
a  certain  impression  on  the  mind  of  his  reader.  But  if  even 
letters  are  no  faithful  index  to  our  thought,  how  much  less 
so  are  prints,  intended  for  the  perusal  of  thousands  and 
even  to  outlive  the  writer's  age  ?  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
true  that  the  deliberation  which  accompanies  the  use  of  the 
pen,  imparts,  in  a  certain  sense,  to  the  written  word  a  higher 
value  than  is  possessed  by  the  spoken  word.  We  should, 
however,  expect  to  find  in  a  man  occupying  such  a  position 
as  Luther's  a  standard  sufficiently  high  to  ensure  the 
presence  of  deliberation  and  judgment  even  in  ordinary 
conversation. 

Among  the  valuable  statements  made  by  Luther,  which 
on  account  of  their  very  nature  were  unsuited  for  public 
utterance  but  have  been  faithfully  transmitted  in  the  Table- 
Talk,  we  have,  for  instance,  certain  criticisms  of  friends 
and  even  patrons  in  high  places.  Such  reflections  could  not 
well  be  uttered  save  in  the  privacy  of  his  domestic  circle, 
but,  for  this  very  reason,  they  may  well  be  prized  by  the 
historian.  Then  we  have  his  candid  admissions  concerning 
himself,  for  instance,  that  his  fear  lest  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse 
should  fall  away  from  the  cause  of  the  Evangel  constituted 
one  of  the  motives  which  led  him  to  sanction  this  Prince's 
bigamy.  Then,  again,  there  is  the  account  of  his  mental 
trouble,  due  to  certain  external  events,  of  the  influence  of 
biblical  passages,  old  memories,  etc.  Finally,  we  have  his 
strange  counsels  concerning  resistance  to  temptation,  his 

1  Page  64. 


222         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

own  example  held  up  as  a  consolation  to  the  faint-hearted, 
to  those  who  wavered  in  the  faith  or  were  inclined  to 
despair ;  his  excuse  for  a  "  good  drink,"  his  curious  recipe 
for  counteracting  the  evil  done  by  witches  at  home,  and 
many  other  statements  of  an  intimate  nature  which  were 
quite  unsuitable  for  public  writings  or  even  for  letters. 
All  this,  and  much  more,  offers  the  unprejudiced  observer 
an  opportunity  for  knowing  Luther  better.  It  is  true  that 
all  is  not  the  Word  of  God  ;  this  Luther  himself  states  in  a 
passage  which  has  been  wrongly  brought  forward  in  excuse 
of  the  Table-Talk  :  "I  must  admit  that  I  say  many  things 
which  are  not  the  Word  of  God,  when  speaking  outside  my 
office  of  preacher,  at  home  at  meals,  or  elsewhere  and  at 
other  times."1 

The  value  of  the  Table-Talk  (always  assuming  the  use 
of  the  oldest  and  authentic  version)  is  enhanced  if  we  take 
into  consideration  the  attitude  assumed  with  regard  to  it  by 
learned  Protestant  writers  of  earlier  times.  As  an  instance  of 
a  certain  type  we  may  take  Walch,  the  scholarly  editor  of  the 
important  Jena  edition  of  Luther's  works  prized  even  to- 
day.2 He  was  much  annoyed  at  the  publication  of  the 
Table-Talk,  just  because  it  furnished  abundant  material  for 
a  delineation  of  Luther,  i.e.  for  that  very  reason  for  which 
it  is  esteemed  by  the  modern  historian.  It  was  unjust,  he 
says,  and  "  quite  wrong  to  reveal  what  ought  to  have  been 
buried  in  silence,  to  say  nothing  of  the  opportunity  thus 
afforded  the  Papists  for  abuse  and  calumny  of  Luther's 
person  and  life."  At  most — he  continues  in  a  tone  in  which 
no  present-day  historian  would  dare  to  speak — mere 
"  selections  "  from  the  Table-Talk  "  which  could  give  no 
offence  "  ought  to  have  been  published,  but  thus  to  bring 
everything  ruthlessly  to  light  was  a  "  perversion  of  the 
human  will."  Fortunately,  however,  it  was  not  possible 
even  so  to  prove  much  against  Luther,  for,  "  though  the 
sayings  emanated  from  him  originally,3  still,  they  remained 


1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  52,  p.  107. 

2  Walch,  in  the  edition  of  the  Table-Talk,  Luther's  Works,  in  Jena 
ed.,  22,  quotes  various  passages  from  Protestant  scholars  who  thought 
as  he  did.     Preface,  p.  25  f. 

3  He  points  out  incidentally  (p.  36)  that  the  authority  for  the 
Table-Talk  was  not  absolutely  unquestioned.  He  was  not  ac- 
quainted with  the  original  documents,  most  of  which  have  now  been 
published. 


THE  TABLE-TALK  223 

mere  sayings,  spoken  without  deliberation  and  written  down 
without  his  knowledge  or  consent."1 

When  he  made  this  last  statement  Walch  was  not  aware 
that  Luther's  utterances  were  committed  to  writing  in  his 
presence  and  with  his  full  "  consent  and  knowledge  "  even, 
for  instance,  when  spoken  in  the  garden.  "  Strange  as  it 
may  appear  to  us,  these  men  were  usually  busy  recording 
Luther's  casual  words,  just  as  though  they  were  seated  in  a 
lecture-hall."2  Once,  in  1540,  Catherine  Bora  said  jestingly 
to  Luther,  when  they  were  at  table  with  several  industrious 
students  :  "  Doctor,  don't  teach  them  without  being  paid  ; 
they  have  already  written  down  quite  a  lot ;  Lauterbach, 
however,  has  written  the  most  and  all  that  is  best."  To 
which  the  Doctor  replied  ;  "I  have  taught  and  preached 
gratis  for  thirty  years,  why  then  should  I  now  begin  to  take 
money  for  it  in  my  old  age  ?  "3 

The  style  of  the  original  notes  of  the  Table-Talk  in  many 
instances  shows  plainly  that  they  were  made  while  the 
conversation  was  actually  in  progress  ;  even  the  frequent 
defects  in  the  construction  of  the  original  notes,  which  have 
now  been  published,  prove  this.4 

In  1844  E.  Forstemann  in  his  edition  of  the  Table-Talk, 
as  against  Walch,  had  expressed  himself  strongly  in  favour 
of  its  correctness  ;  he  even  went  so  far  as  to  remark,  with 
all  the  prejudice  of  an  editor  for  his  own  work,  that  these 
conversations  constituted  the  most  important  part  of 
Luther's  spiritual  legacy,  and  that  here  "  the  current  of  his 
thoughts    flows    even    more    limpidly    than    elsewhere."5 

1  Bindseil  also  remarked  of  the  "  Colloquia  "  :  "  We  cannot  deny- 
that  it  would  have  been  better  had  much  of  this  not  been  written." 
"  Tischreden,"  ed.  Forstemann  and  Bindseil,  4,  p.  xi.  Cp.  similar 
passages,  ibid.,  p.  xxiv.,  n.,  and  contrast  with  them  Aurifaber's  eulogy  of 
the  Table-Talk  which  came  "  from  the  saintly  lips  of  Luther,"  p.  xxii. 

2  Kroker,  p.  2.  3  Ibid.,  p.  192. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  3.  Moreover,  the  rough  notes  drafted  at  the  table  were 
afterwards  re-copied  and  amended,  and  this  amended  form  alone  is  all 
we  have.  Cp.  Kroker,  "  Archiv  fur  Reformationsgesch,"  7,  1909,  p. 
84.  In  the  Weimar  ed.  a  first  volume,  edited  by  E.  Kroker,  of  the 
Table-Talk  is  at  present  appearing.  In  it  are  found  the  accounts  given 
by  Veit  Dietrich,  and  another  important  collection  dating  from  the 
earlier  portion  of  the  third  decade  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Vol.  ii., 
commencing  with  Schlaginhaufen,  is  already  in  the  hands  of  the 
printers. 

5  Vol.  i.,  Preface,  p.  vii.  In  the  Latin  edition  of  the  Table-Talk 
Bindseil,  in  spite  of  the  scruples  alluded  to  above  (n.  1),  speaks  in 
praise  of  the  Table-Talk,  and  makes  his  own  the  words  of  J.  Miillen- 
siefen  (1857).    The  Table-Talk  showed  Luther  as  "  the  noblest  offshoot 


224         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

Walter  Kohler  likewise,  speaking  of  the  Table-Talk  edited 
by  Kroker,  considers  it  a  "  reliable  source."1 

Of  Johann  Aurifaber,  who  was  the  first  to  publish  the 
Table-Talk  in  German,  at  Eisleben  in  1566,  and  through 
whose  edition  it  was  most  widely  known,  F.  X.  Funk  said 
in  1882  :  "As  his  devotion  to  Luther  led  him  to  make 
public  all  the  words  and  sayings  which  had  come  to  his 
knowledge,  the  book,  in  spite  of  its  defective  plan,  is  im- 
portant for  the  history  of  the  Reformer  and  his  time.  Its 
value  has  always  been  admitted,  though  from  different 
standpoints  ;  of  this  its  numerous  editions  are  a  proof."2 
The  defect  in  the  arrangement  consists  in  the  classifying 
of  the  sayings  handed  down  according  to  the  different 
subjects,  whereby  they  lose  their  historical  setting.  The 
large,  new  edition  of  the  Table-Talk  now  planned,  will 
necessarily  abandon  this  confusing  arrangement.  It  has 
been  proved,  however,  that  Aurifaber  had  a  reliable  version 
to  work  on.  "  He  most  probably  took  for  the  basis  of  his 
edition  Lauterbach's  preliminary  work,"3  says  Kawerau. 

of  his  nation  "  ;  it  is  true  the  coarseness  and  plainness  of  speech  are 
inexcusable,  but  it  all  contributes  towards  the  "  perfect  characterisation 
of  the  great  man,"  for  "  the  wrinkles  and  furrows  are  part  of  his  por- 
trait "  ("Coll.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  xiii.).  Luther's  opponents  were, 
however,  of  a  different  opinion  even  in  the  early  days.  G.  Stein- 
hausen,  in  his  "  Deutsche  Kulturgesch.,"  Leipzig,  1904,  p.  513,  quotes 
Johann  Fickler  of  Salzburg,  who  describes  the  Table-Talk  as  "  full  of 
obscene  and  stinking  jests,"  and  compares  it  to  the  erotic  products 
of  the  Epicureans.    Steinhausen  himself  is  loath  to  go  so  far. 

1  "  Theol.  Jahresbericht,"  23,  p.  488. 

2  Wetzer  and  Welte,  "  KL.,"3  art.  "  Aurifaber."  H.  Bohmer  like- 
wise admits  that :  "  Although  their  [the  principal  witnesses' :  Dietrich, 
Lauterbach,  and  Mathesius]  statements  must  always  be  critically 
examined,  yet  it  is  established,  that  they  have  preserved  for  us  an  ex- 
ceptional number  of  data  concerning  Luther's  life,  acts,  and  opinions. 
They  supply  us  with  what  on  the  whole  is  an  accurate  account,  arranged 
in  chronological  order,  which  brings  the  real  Luther  almost  as  closely 
before  us  as  his  own  letters  and  writings."  In  his  objections  against 
the  "  principal  witnesses  "  he  does  not  pay  sufficient  attention  to  the 
existence  of  the  original  notes  ("  Luther  im  Lichte  der  neueren  For- 
schung,"2  1910,  p.  105).  Protestant  theologians  and  historians  of 
Luther  are  now  in  the  habit  of  laying  stress  on  the  Table-Talk,  no  less 
than  on  Luther's  other  works,  and  that  even  in  the  case  of  weighty  and 
controverted  questions.  Examples  might  be  quoted  from  Loofs, 
Drews,  G.  Kawerau,  J.  Kostlin,  G.  Ward,  etc. 

3  "RE.  f.  prot.  Theol.,"3  art.  "Aurifaber."  In  the  "  Abh.  der 
Kgl.  Ges.  d.  Wissensch.  Gotting.,  Phil.-hist.  KL,  N.F.,"  1,  Wilhelm 
Meyer  deals  with  the  Collections  of  Lauterbach  and  Aurifaber.  In  the 
same  way  Kawerau  points  out  in  his  "  Studien  und  Kritiken,"  81, 
1908,  p.  338,  "  the  importance  of  these  notes  for  Luther's  biography 
and  for  a  knowledge  of  his  home  life."     Cp.  Kawerau,  ibid.,  p.  354,  on 


THE  TABLE-TALK  225 

This  collection  of  Lauterbach's  has  been  incorporated,  for 
the  most  part,  in  the  Halle  MS.  edited  by  Bindseil  under 
the  title  "  Colloquial  etc.1  In  addition  to  this,  Aurifaber 
made  use  of  the  notes  by  Cordatus,  Schlaginhaufen,  Veit 
Dietrich,  Mathesius  and  others.  Kawerau  draws  attention 
to  the  fact,  that  the  coarseness  to  be  found  in  the  German 
edition  is  not  solely  due  to  the  compiler,  as  some  of  Luther's 
apologists  had  urged,  but  really  belongs  to  the  original 
texts.  Gross  sayings  of  the  sort  not  only  gave  no  offence 
to  Aurifaber,  but  he  delights  to  repeat  them  at  great  length. 
Yet  in  certain  instances  he  appears  to  have  watered  down 
and  modified  his  text,  as  one  investigator  has  proved  by  a 
comparison  with  the  notes  of  Cordatus.2 

The  Pith  of  the  New  Religion.    Doubts  on  Faith. 

We  shall  begin  by  giving  some  practical  theological 
examples  out  of  the  Table-Talk  which  may  serve  further  to 
elucidate  certain  of  Luther's  ideas  already  referred  to,  e.g. 
those  concerning  temptations  and  their  remedy,  particularly 
that  most  serious  temptation  of  all,  viz.  regarding  the 
saving  power  of  fiducial  faith,  which,  so  Luther  thinks, 
comes  through  our  "  weakness."  To  this,  the  tender  spot 
and  at  the  same  time  cardinal  point  of  his  teaching  and 
practical  morality,  Luther  returns  again  and  again,  with  a 
frankness  for  which  indeed  we  may  be  grateful.  Owing  to 
the  nature  of  the  conversations  and  to  his  habitual  loquacity 
it  may  happen  that  some  of  the  trains  of  thought  and  modes 
of  expression  resemble  those  already  quoted  elsewhere ; 
this,  however,  is  no  reason  for  neglecting  them,  for  they 
testify  anew  to  the  ideas  of  which  his  mind  was  full,  and  also 
to  the  state  of  habitual  depression  in  which  he  lived. 

the  old  re-arrangement  according  to  the  subject-matter.  The  "  au- 
thenticity "  of  the  sayings  which  occur  in  these  revised  editions  can  be 
proved  in  many  instances  from  the  original  writings  and  from  the  light 
thrown  on  them  by  parallel  passages  now  in  print,  but  the  "  dates  " 
are  another  matter.  Where,  in  the  present  work,  any  date  is  taken  from 
the  revised  editions,  it  rests  solely  on  the  aiithority  of  the  latter.  Cp. 
Kroker's  remarks  on  the  Table-Talk  of  1540  in  the  "  Archiv  f.  Reforma- 
tionsgesch.,"  1908,  above,  p.  218,  n.  2.  On  Aurifaber's  re-arrangement 
of  the  Table-Talk,  see  Cristiani,  "  Revue  de  questions  historiques,"  91, 
1912,  p.  113. 

1  Lauterbach,  Luther's  pupil,  who  was  also  the  author  of  the  Diary, 
revised  his  Collection  and  sought  to  improve  upon  the  arrangement  ; 
a  similar,  later  revision  of  this  formed  the  basis  of  the  "  Colloquia  "  of 
Rebenstock.    Kawerau,  ibid.  'l  Cp.  below,  p.  £31,  n.  2. 

III.— Q 


226         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

"  Early  this  morning  the  devil  held  a  disputation  with  me  on 
Zwingli,  and  I  learned  that  a  full  head  is  better  able  to  wrangle 
with  the  devil  than  an  empty  one.  .  .  .  Hence,"  he  says,  "  eat 
and  drink  and  live  well,  for  bodies  tempted  in  this  way  must  have 
plenty  of  food  and  drink  ;  but  lewdsters,  and  those  tempted 
by  sensual  passion,  ought  to  fast."1 

"  For  those  who  are  tempted  fasting  is  a  hundred  times  worse 
than  eating  and  drinking."2 

"  When  a  man  is  tempted,  or  is  in  the  company  of  those  who 
are  tempted,  let  him  put  to  death  Moses  [i.e.  the  Law]  and  cast 
stones  at  him  ;  but,  when  he  recovers,  the  Law  must  be  preached 
to  him  also  ;  a  man  who  is  troubled  must  not  have  new  trouble 
heaped  upon  him."3 

"  In  the  monastery  the  words  '  just  and  justice  '  fell  like  a 
thunderbolt  upon  my  conscience.  I  was  terrified  when  I  heard 
it  said  :  '  He  is  just,  and  He  will  punish.'  "4  [But  now  I  know]  : 
"  Our  justice  is  a  relative  justice  [a  foreign  righteousness]. 
Though  I  am  not  good,  yet  Christ  is  good."5  "  Hence  I  say  to 
the  devil  :    I,  indeed,  am  a  sinner,  but  Christ  is  righteous."6 

Many  admissions  reveal  his  altered  feelings,  the  inconstancy 
and  sudden  changes  to  which  he  was  so  prone. 

"  I  do  not  always  take  pleasure  in  the  Word.  Were  I  always 
so  disposed  towards  the  Word  of  God  as  I  was  formerly,  then 
I  should  indeed  be  happy.  Even  dear  St.  Paul  had  to  complain 
in  this  regard,  for  he  bewails  another  law  which  wars  in  his 
members.  But  is  the  Word  to  be  considered  false  because  it 
does  not  happen  to  suit  me  ?  "7 

"  Unless  we  wrap  ourselves  round  with  this  God,  Who  has 
become  both  Man  and  Word,  Satan  will  surely  devour  us." 
"  Hence  the  aim  of  the  Prophets  and  the  Apostles,  viz.  to  make 
us  hold  fast  to  the  Word."  "  It  costs  God  Almighty  much  to 
manifest  His  power  and  mercy  even  to  a  few.  He  must  slay 
many  kings  before  a  few  men  learn  to  fear  Him,  and  He  must 
save  many  a  rascal  and  many  a  prostitute  before  even  a  handful 
of  sinners  learn  to  believe  in  Him."8 

"  So  soon  as  I  say  :  '  Yes,  indeed,  I  am  a  poor  sinner,'  Christ 
replies,  '  But  I  died  for  you,  I  baptised  you  and  I  teach  you 
daily.'  .  .  .  Ever  bear  this  in  mind,  that  it  is  not  Christ  Who 
affrights  you,  but  Satan  ;  believe  this  as  though  God  Himself 
were  speaking."9 

"  Is  it  not  a  curse  that  we  should  magnify  our  sins  so  greatly  ? 
Why  do  we  not  exalt  our  baptism  just  as  we  exalt  our  inherit- 
ance ?    A  princely  baby  remains  a  prince  even  though  he  should 

s in  his  cradle.     A  child  does  not  cease  being  heir  to  his 

father's  property  for  having  soiled  his  father's  habiliments.     If 
only  we  could  see  our  way  to  make  much  of  our  inheritance  and 

1  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  23. 

2  Ibid.,  p.   11.  3  Ibid.,  p.  48,  4  Ibid.,  p.  108. 
5  Ibid.,  p.  115.             6  Ibid.,  p.  26.             7  Ibid.,  p.  79. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  88  (Khummer). 

9  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  131. 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE   TABLE-TALK     227 

patrimony  before  God  !  .  .  .  Yet  children  call  God  quite  simply 
their  Father."1 

"  You  are  not  the  only  man  to  be  tempted  ;  I  also  am  tempted 
and  have  bigger  sins  piled  on  my  conscience  than  you  and  your 
fathers.  I  would  rather  I  had  been  a  procurer  or  highwayman 
than  that  I  should  have  offered  up  Christ  in  the  Mass  for  so 
long  a  time."2 

The  last  words  may  serve  as  an  introduction  to  a  remark- 
able series  of  statements  concerning  the  religious  practices 
of  the  ancient  Church.  As  these  words  show,  he  does  not 
shrink  from  dishonouring  by  the  most  unworthy  comparisons 
even  those  acts  and  doctrines  which,  by  reason  of  their 
religious  value,  were  dear  to  the  whole  Church  of  antiquity 
and  had  been  regarded  by  some  of  the  purest  and  most 
exalted  souls  as  their  only  consolation  in  this  life. 

Elsewhere  he  says  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  :  "  The  blind 
priestlings  run  to  the  altar  like  pigs  to  the  trough  "  ;  this,  "  the 
shame  of  our  scarlet  woman  of  Babylon,  must  be  exposed." 
"  I  maintain  that  all  public  houses  of  ill-fame,  strictly  forbidden 
by  God  though  they  be,  yea,  manslaughter,  thieving,  murder 
and  adultery,  are  not  so  wicked  and  pernicious  as  this  abomina- 
tion of  the  Popish  Mass."3 

He  says  of  the  Catholic  preacher  :  "  Where  the  undefiled 
Evangel  is  not  preached,  the  whoremonger  is  far  less  a  sinner 
than  the  preacher,  and  the  brothel  less  wicked  than  the  church  ; 
that  the  procurer  should  daily  make  prostitutes  of  virgins,  honest 
wives  and  cloistered  nuns,  is  indeed  frightful  to  hear  of;  still,  his 
case  is  not  so  bad  as  that  of  the  Popish  preacher."4 

The  Church's  exhortation  to  make  use  of  fasting  as  a  remedy 
in  the  struggle  against  sin — in  which  counsel  she  had  the  support 
both  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  immemorial  experience — was  thus 
described  by  Luther  :  "  No  eating  or  drinking,  gluttony  or 
drunkenness  can  be  so  bad  as  fasting  ;  indeed,  it  would  be  better 
to  swill  day  and  night  rather  than  to  fast  for  such  a  purpose,"  so 
"  ludicrous  and  shameful  in  God's  sight  "  was  such  fasting.5 

"  Confession  "  (as  made  by  Catholics),  Luther  asserted  in 
1538,  "  is  less  to  be  condoned  than  any  infamy."  "  The  devil 
assails  Christians  with  pressing  temptations,  most  of  all  on 
account  of  their  confessions."6 

The  life  of  the  Saints  in  the  Catholic  Church,  he  says  elsewhere, 
consisted  in  "  their  having  prayed  much,  fasted,  laboured,  taken 

1  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  115. 

2  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  95. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  773  f.    Sermon  in  1524. 

4  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  7,  p.  213.     Church-Postils. 

5  Ibid.,  132,  p.  108,  Church-Postils. 

6  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  35. 


228         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

the  discipline,  slept  on  hard  pallets  and  worn  poor  clothing,  a 
kind  of  holiness  which  any  dog  or  pig  might  practise  any  day."1 
He  voices  his  abhorrence  of  the  monastic  life  in  figures  such  as 
the  following  :  "  Discalced  Friars  are  lice  placed  by  the  devil  on 
God  Almighty's  fur  coat,  and  Friars-preacher  are  the  fleas  of  His 
shirt."  "  I  believe  the  Franciscans  to  be  possessed  of  the  devil, 
body  and  soul,"2  and,  reverting  once  again  to  his  favourite  image, 
he  adds  elsewhere  :  "  Neither  the  dens  of  evil  women  nor  any 
secret  sins  are  so  pernicious  as  those  rules  and  vows  which  the 
devil  himself  has  invented."3 

We  have  to  proceed  to  the  uninviting  task  of  collecting 
other  sayings  of  Luther's,  particularly  from  the  Table-Talk, 
which  are  characteristic  of  his  more  than  plain  manner  of 
speaking,  and  to  pass  in  review  the  somewhat  peculiar  views 
held  by  him  on  matters  sexual.  As  it  is  to  be  feared  that 
the  delicacy  of  some  of  our  readers  will  be  offended,  we  may 
point  out  that  those  who  wish  are  at  liberty  to  skip  the 
pages  which  follow  and  to  continue  from  Section  7  of  the 
present  chapter  which  forms  the  natural  sequence  of  what 
has  gone  before.  Certainly  no  one  would  have  had  just 
cause  for  complaint  had  one  of  the  guests  at  Luther's  table 
chosen  to  take  leave  when  the  conversation  began  to  turn 
on  matters  distasteful  to  him.  The  historian,  however,  is 
obliged  to  remain.  True  to  his  task  he  may  not  close  his 
ears  to  what  is  said,  however  unpleasant  the  task  of  listener. 
He  must  bear  in  mind  that  Cordatus,  one  of  Luther's  guests, 
in  the  Diary  he  wrote  praises  Luther's  Table-Talk  as  "  more 
precious  than  the  oracles  of  Apollo."  This  praise  Cordatus 
bestows  not  only  on  the  "  serious  theological  discourses," 
but  also  expressly  on  those  sayings  which  were  apparently 
merely  frivolous.4  Another  pupil,  Mathesius,  who  was  also 
frequently  present,  assures  us  he  never  heard  an  improper 
word  from  Luther's  lips.5  This  he  writes  in  spite  of  the 
fact,  that  one  of  the  first  anecdotes  he  relates,  embellished 
with  a  Latin  verse  from  Philo,  contains  an  unseemly  jest,6 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  63,  p.  304,  "  Tischreden." 

2  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  pp.  136,  135. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  102,  p.  465.     Church-Postils. 

4  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  1  :  "  Qui  me  invito  hec  describit, 
tantum  tali  animo  describat,  quali  ego,  simplici  et  candido,  et  laudet  verba 
Lutheri  magis  quam  Apollinis  miracula  [oracula'].'''' 

6  "  Historien  von  des  ehrwurdigen  in  Gott  seligen  the  wren  Manns 
Gottes  Doctoris  Martini  Lutheri  Leben,"  etc.,  Nuremberg,  1566,p.  146. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  147  :  "  Arvinam  quaerunt  multi  in  podice  porci  "  (Philo), 
applied  by  Luther  to  the  marriage  of  a  "  young  fellow  with  an  old  hag 
(vetula)." 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  TABLE-TALK     229 

and  that  he  himself  immediately  after  tells  how  Luther  on 
one  occasion  told  the  people  from  the  pulpit  that :  "  Ein 
weiter  Leib  und  zeitiger  Mist  ist  gut  zu  scheiden  "  ;  he 
even  mentions  that  Luther  was  carried  away  to  express 
himself  yet  more  plainly  concerning  the  ventral  functions, 
till  he  suddenly  reined  in  and  corrected  himself.  The  truth 
is  that  Mathesius  was  an  infatuated  admirer  of  Luther's. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  terms  descriptive  of  the  lower  functions 
of  the  body  again  and  again  serve  Luther  not  only  to 
express  his  anger  and  contempt,  but  as  comparisons  illustra- 
tive of  his  ideas,  whether  on  indifferent  matters  or  on  the 
highest  and  most  sacred  topics.  It  is  true  that  what  he  said 
was  improper  rather  than  obscene,  coarse  rather  than 
lascivious.  Nor,  owing  to  the  rough  and  uncouth  character 
of  the  age  and  the  plainness  of  speech  then  habitual,  were 
his  expressions,  taken  as  a  whole,  so  offensive  to  his  con- 
temporaries as  to  us.  Yet,  that  Luther  should  have  culti- 
vated this  particular  sort  of  language  so  as  to  outstrip  in 
it  all  his  literary  contemporaries,  scarcely  redounds  to  his 
credit.  His  readers  and  hearers  of  that  day  frequently 
expressed  their  disgust,  and  at  times  his  language  was  so 
strong  that  even  Catherine  Bora  was  forced  to  cry  halt. 

As  a  matter  of  course  the  devil  came  in  for  the  largest 
share  of  this  kind  of  vituperation,  more  particularly  that 
devil  who  was  filling  Luther  with  anxiety  and  trouble  of 
mind.  The  Pope  and  his  Catholic  opponents  came  a  good 
second.  Luther  was,  however,  fond  of  spicing  in  the  same 
way  even  his  utterances  on  purely  worldly  matters. 

"  When  we  perceive  the  devil  tempting  us,"  he  says,  "  we  can 
easily  overcome  him  by  putting  his  pride  to  shame  and  saying  to 
him  :  '  Leek  mich  im  Arss,'  or  '  Scheiss  in  die  Bruch  und  hengs 
an  den  Halss.'  "x  This  counsel  he  actually  put  in  practice  : 
"  On  May  7,  1532,  the  devil  was  tormenting  me  in  the  afternoon, 
and  thoughts  troubled  me,  such  as  that  a  thunderbolt  might 
kill  me,  so  I  replied  to  him  :  '  Leek  mich  im  Arss,  I  am  going 
to  sleep,  not  to  hold  a  disputation.'  "2  When  the  devil  would 
not  cease  urging  his  sins  against  him  he  had  a  drastic  method  of 
effectually  disposing  of  his  importunity.3 

He  relates  in  the  Table-Talk,  in  1536,  the  "  artifice  "  by  which 
the  parish-priest  of  Wittenberg,  his  friend  Johann  Bugenhagen 
(Pomeranus),  had  put  the  devil  to  flight.     It  was  a  question  of 

1  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  27. 

2  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungcn,"  p.  82. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  89. 


230         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

the  milk  which  the  devil  had  bewitched  by  means  of  sorceresses 
or  witches.  Luther  says  :  "  Dr.  Pommer's  plan  was  the  best, 
viz.  to  plague  them  [the  witches]  with  filth  and  stir  it  into  the 
milk  so  that  everything  stank.  For  when  his  [Pommer's]  cows 
also  lost  their  milk,  he  promptly  took  a  vessel  filled  with  milk, 
relieved  himself  in  it,  poured  out  the  contents  and  said  :  '  There, 
devil,  eat  that.  After  that  he  was  no  longer  deprived  of  the 
milk."1  Before  this  his  wife  and  the  maids  had  worried  them- 
selves to  death  trying  "  to  get  the  butter  to  come  " — as  we  read 
in  another  account  of  this  occurrence  in  a  version  of  the  Table- 
Talk  which  is  more  accurately  dated — but  all  to  no  purpose. 
"  Then  Pommer  came  up,  mocked  at  the  devil  and  eased  himself 
in  the  churn.  Thereupon  Satan  ceased  his  tricks,  for  he  is  proud 
and  cannot  bear  to  be  laughed  at."2 

Less  formal,  according  to  him,  was  the  action  of  another 
individual,  who  had  put  Satan  to  flight  by  a  "  crepitus  ventris."3 

Still,  all  temptations  of  the  devil  are  profitable  to  us,  so  Luther 
says,  for,  if  we  were  always  at  peace,  the  devil  himself  "  would  treat 
us  ignominiously,"4  for  he  is  full  of  nothing  but  deception  and 
filthiness.  Luther,  like  many  of  his  contemporaries  and  later 
writers,  was  well  acquainted  with  the  devil's  private  life,  and 
convinced  that  "  devil's  prostitutes  :  '  cum  quibus  Sathan  coiret '  " 
actually  existed.6 

As  the  filthy  details  of  the  expulsion  of  the  devil  from  the 
churn  are  omitted  in  Lauterbach's  Diary,  certain  defenders  of 
Luther  think  they  are  warranted  in  drawing  from  this  particular 
passage  the  conclusion  that  the  Table-Talk  had  been  polluted 
by  "  unseemly  "  additions  in  Aurifaber's  and  other  later  versions 
(above,  p.  224  f.)  which  "  must  not  be  laid  to  the  charge  of  the 
Reformer."  "  Not  Luther  in  his  domestic  circle,  but  the  com- 
pilers and  collectors  of  the  much-discussed  Table-Talk,  Aurifaber 
in  particular,  were  rude,  obscene  and  vulgar."  The  publication 
of  the  original  documents,  for  instance,  by  Kroker  in  1903,  has, 
however,  shown  the  first  version  of  the  Table-Talk  to  be  even 
more  intolerably  coarse,  and  confirmed  the  substantial  accuracy 
of  the  text  of  the  older  German  Table-Talk  at  present  under  dis- 
cussion.6 Preger,  the  editor  of  Schlaginhaufen's  notes,  rightly 
repudiated  such  evasions  even  in  1888,  together  with  the  alleged 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  60,  p.  78.  In  the  first  edition  of  the  German 
Table-Talk,  1566,  p.  307.  Cp.  against  O.  Waltz,  on  the  authenticity 
of  the  account,  N.  Paulus,  "  Hexenwahn  und  Hexenprozess  vornehm- 
lich  im  16.  Jahrhundert,"  1910,  p.  39. 

2  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  380,  said  between  October  28  and 
December  12,  1536.  Cp.  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  121  :  "  The 
village  pastor  and  the  schoolmaster  had  their  own  way  of  dealing  [with 
the  witches]  and  plagued  them  greatly.  But  D.  Pommer's  way  is  the 
best  of  all,  viz.  to  plague  them  with  filth  and  stir  it  well  up  and  so  make 
all  their  things  to  stink." 

3  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  56. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  74  (Khummer).  6  Ibid.,  p.  111. 

6  Cp.  N.  Paulus  in  his  art.  on  Kroker's  edition  of  the  "  Tischreden 
in  der  Mathesischen  Sammlung  "  ("  Hist,  polit.  Blatter,"  133,  1904, 
pp.  199  ff.,  208  f.). 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  TABLE-TALK     231 

proofs  urged  by  apologists.  "  We  want  to  see  Luther,"  he  says, 
"  under  the  actual  conditions  in  which  he  moved,  and  in  all  his 
own  native  rudeness."1  Kroker  also  pointed  out  that  even  the 
first  writers  of  the  Table-Talk  made  use  of  certain  signs  in 
their  notes  (e.g.  x  or  1  )  in  lieu  of  certain  words  employed  by 
Luther  which  they  felt  scrupulous  about  writing.2 

"  The  entire  lack  of  restraint  with  which  Luther  expresses 
himself,"  a  Protestant  writer  says  of  the  Table-Talk  edited  by 
Kroker,  "  makes  a  remarkable  impression  on  the  reader  of  to- 
day, more  particularly  when  we  consider  that  his  wife  and 
children  were  among  the  audience.  ...  In  the  Table-Talk  we 
meet  with  numerous  statements,  some  of  them  far-fetched, 
which  are  really  coarse.  .  .  .  Although  we  can  explain  Luther's 
love  of  obscenities,  still,  this  does  not  hinder  us  from  deploring 
his  use  of  such  and  placing  it  to  his  discredit.  It  is  true,"  the 
same  writer  proceeds,  "  that  Luther  is  never  lascivious  or  merely 
frivolous."3  As  regards  the  latter  assertion  the  texts  to  be 
adduced  will  afford  a  better  opportunity  of  judging.  That  at 
any  rate  in  the  instances  already  mentioned  Luther  did  not 
intentionally  wish  to  excite  his  hearers'  passions  is  clear,  and  the 
fact  has  been  admitted  even  by  Catholic  polemics  who  have 
really  read  his  writings  and  Table-Talk.4 

An  alarming  number  of  dirty  expressions  concerning  the  Pope 
and  Catholicism  occur  in  the  Table-Talk. 

1  W.  Preger,  "  Tischreden  .  .  .  nach  den  Aufzeichnungen  von 
J.  Schlaginhaufen,"  p.  iv. 

2  Cp.  N.  Paulus,  ibid.,  p.  40  ;  Kroker,  pp.  156,  158,  202.  Kroker 
says  (p.  158),  "  Luther  probably  made  use  of  a  colloquial  word  for 
phallus,  or  something  similar."  Luther  is  complaining  of  the  excesses 
to  which  the  Catholics  gave  themselves  up  on  pilgrimages,  and  which 
the  Pope  constantly  indulged  in.  One  MS.  there  cited  omits  the  passage 
altogether.  The  Table-Talk  of  Mathesius  (p.  141)  contains  the  following 
speech  of  Luther's  in  1540  tinder  the  title  "  Exemplum  verecundiae 
Lutheri  "  :  "  Rochlicensis  princeps.  Is  interrogabat  '  Qui  vacatur 
verum  [sic]  de  domina  veslra  natante  cum,  equite  per  aquas  ?  Non  volo 
autem  obscocnum  audire  sed  verum.''  Ich  mein,  das  heisst :  die  x 
ausgeschwembt  ").  For  the  liberty  which  Aurifaber  permits  himself 
in  the  matter  of  toning  down  and  weakening  the  original  text  of  the 
Table-Talk,  cp.,  for  instance,  the  remarks  in  the  Preface  to  the  Cordatus 
Collection.  What  the  latter  gives  in  all  its  crudity  (see  the  twenty-four 
passages  there  quoted  by  Wrampelmeyer)  Aurifaber  either  does  not 
reproduce  at  all  or  does  so  in  an  inoffensive  form,  or  accompanied  with 
such  expressions  as  "to  speak  decently,"  etc.  Cordatus  knew  and 
acknowledged  that  it  was  an  "  audax  f acinus  "  to  write  down  all  he 
heard,  but  his  opinion  was  that  "  pudorem  vincebat  utilitas  "  ;  Luther, 
who  was  watching  his  work,  never  gave  him  to  understand  by  so  much 
as  one  word  that  it  did  not  meet  with  his  approval. 

3  "  Beil.  zur  Miinchener  Allg.  Ztng.,"  1904,  No.  26. 

4  G.  Evers  ("  Martin  Luther,"  6,  p.  701),  for  instance,  says  that 
"  In  his  Table-Talk  we  find  not  merely  plain-spoken,  but  really  cynical 
discourses,  and  much  which  to  us  sounds  obscene.  Still,  his  admirers 
may  possibly  be  right  when  they  absolve  him  of  indecency  or  of  any 
intention  to  arouse  sensual  passion." 


232  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

"  Were  the  Pope  to  cite  me  to  appear  before  him,"  Luther 

says,   "  I   should   not  go.     I   should   s upon  the  summons 

because  he  is  hostile  to  me  ;   but  were  I  summoned  by  a  Council, 
then  I  should  go."1 

Elsewhere,  however,  he  says  of  the  Council  :  "I  should  like, 
during  my  lifetime,  to  see  a  Council  deal  with  the  matter,  for 
they  would  give  one  another  a  fine  pummelling,  and  us  a  splendid 
reason  for  writing  against  them."2 

What  was  the  origin  of  the  Pope's  authority  ?  "I  see  plainly 
whence  the  Pope  came  ;  he  is  the  vomit  of  the  lazy,  idle  Lords 
and  Princes."3 — "  Then  the  Pope  burst  upon  the  world  with  his 
pestilential  traditions  and  bound  men  by  his  carnal  ordinances, 
his  rules  and  Masses,  to  his  filthy,  rotten  law."4 

Such  unseemly  expressions  occur  at  times  in  conjunction  with 
thoughts  intended  to  be  sublime.  "  I  hold  that  God  has  just  as 
much  to  do  in  bringing  things  back  to  nothingness  as  He  has  in 
creating  them.  This  he  [Luther]  said,  referring  to  human  excre- 
ment. He  also  said  :  I  am  astounded  that  the  dung-hill  of  the 
world  has  not  reached  the  very  sky."5 — "  He  took  his  baby  into 
his  arms  and  perceived  that  it  was  soiling  its  diaper.  His 
remark  was  that  the  small  folk  by  messing  themselves  and 
by  their  howling  and  screaming  earn  their  food  and  drink  just 
as  much  as  we  deserve  heaven  by  our  good  works."6  He  even 
brings  the  holy  name  of  God  into  conjunction  with  one  such 
customary  vulgar  expression.  "  I  too  have  laid  down  rules 
and  sought  to  be  master,  Aber  der  frum  Gott  hat  mich  in  sein 
Arss  fahren  lassen  und  meyn  Meystern  ist  nichts  worden."7 

"  There  are  many  students  here,  but  I  do  not  believe  there  is 
one  who  would  allow  himself  to  be  anointed  [by  the  Papists],  or 
open  his  mouth  for  the  Pope  to  fill  it  with  his  filth  ;  unless, 
perhaps,  Mathesius  or  Master  Plato."8 

In  his  strange  explanation  of  how  far  God  is  or  is  not  the 
author  of  evil,  he  says  :  Semei  wished  to  curse  and  God  merely 
directed  his  curse  against  David  (2  Kings  xvi.  10).  "  God  says  : 
'  Curse  him  and  no  one  else.'  Just  as  if  a  man  wishes  to  relieve 
himself  I  cannot  prevent  him,  but  should  he  wish  to  do  so  on  the 
table  here,  then  I  should  object  and  tell  him  to  betake  himself 
to  the  corner."9 

"  The  Pope  is  a  cuckoo  who  gobbles  the  eggs  of  his  Church  and 
vomits  the  Cardinals."10 

It  is  not  surprising  that  in  Luther's  conversations  on  non- 
theological,  i.e.  on  secular  subjects,  similar  and  even  more 
offensive  expressions  occur. 

1  Mathesius,  "  Aufzeichnungen  "  (Loesche),  p.  218. 

2  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  83. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  61,  and  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  57,  p.  296. 

4  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  123. 

5  Schlaajinhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  7. 

6  Ibid.,"p   65. 

7  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  106. 

3  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  154. 

9  Ibid,,  p.  203.  »•  Ibid.,  p.  88. 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  TABLE-TALK     233 

He  thinks  that  wo  "  feed  on  the  bowels  of  the  peasants,"  for 
they  "  expel  the  stones  "  which  produce  the  trees  which  produce 
the  fruit  on  which  we  feed.1 — He  has  a  joke  at  the  expense  of  an 
unlearned  man  who  had  mistaken  the  Latin  equivalent  of  the 
German  word  "  Kunst "  for  a  common  German  term:  "Wenn 
man  eynem  auff  die  Kunst  kiisset  so  bescheist  er  sich."2 

Speaking  of  women  who  had  the  impertinence  to  wish  for  a 
share  in  the  government,  he  says  :  "  The  '  Furtzlecher  '  want  to 
rule  and  we  suffer  for  it  ;  they  really  should  be  making  cheese 
and  milking  the  cows."3  Elsewhere  he  says  to  the  preachers  : 
"  We  never  seek  to  please  anybody  nor  to  make  our  mouth  the 

*  Arschloch  '  of  another."4 

"  Those  who  now  grudge  the  preachers  of  the  Word  their 
bread  will  persecute  us  until  we  end  by  disgracing  ourselves. 
Then  .  .  .  '  adorabunt  nostra  stercoral  "  By  a  natural  transition 
of  ideas  he  goes  on  to  say  :  "  They  will  be  glad  to  get  rid  of  us, 
and  we  shall  be  glad  to  be  out  of  them.  We  are  as  ready  to  part 
as  '  ein  reiffer  Dreck  und  ein  weit  Arssloch.'  "5 — "  Rather  than  let 
them  have  such  a  work  [a  conciliatory  writing  requested  by  the 
inhabitants  of  Augsburg]  I  would  '  in  einen  Becher  scheissen 
und  bissen,'  that  they  might  have  whereof  to  eat  and  drink."6 

"  The  lawyers  scream  [when  we  appropriate  Church  property]  : 

*  Sunt  bona  ecclesiae  !  '  .  .  .  Yes  [I  say],  but  where  are  we  to 
get  our  bread  ?  '  We  leave  you  to  see  to  that,'  they  say.  Yes, 
the  devil  may  thank  them  for  that.  We  theologians  have  no 
worse  enemies  than  the  lawyers.  .  .  .  We  here  condemn  all 
jurists,  even  the  pious  ones,  for  they  do  not  know  what  '  ecclesia  ' 
means.  ...  If  a  jurist  wishes  to  dispute  with  you  about  this, 
say  to  him  :    '  Listen,  my  good  fellow,  on  this  subject  no  lawyer 

should  speak  till  he  hears  a  sow  s ,  then  he  must  say  :   '  Thank 

you,  Granny  dear,  it  is  long  since  I  listened  to  a  sermon.'  "7 

After  the  above  there  is  no  need  of  giving  further  instances 
of  the  kind  of  language  with  which  opponents  within  his 
fold  had  to  put  up  from  Luther.  It  will  suffice  to  mention 
the  poem  "  De  merda  "  with  which  he  retaliated  on  the 

1  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  417. 

2  "Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,   1,  p.  428. 

3  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  99. 

4  Mathesius,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  219. 

5  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  188.  For  the  equivalent  passages  in 
Latin  see  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  306,  and  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Reben- 
stock  (Francof.,  1571),  1,  p.  149',  where  the  famous  "adorabunt  nostra 
stercora  "  occurs.  Cp.  the  passages  in  the  old  German  Table-Talk, 
"  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  61,  p.  397,  which  agrees  substantially  with  the  above  : 
"  They  will  oppress  us  until  we  forget  ourselves,  and  then  they  will 
worship  our  filth  and  regard  it  as  balsam,"  and  in  Mathesius,  "  Tisch- 
reden,"  p.  303  :    "  I  am  ripe  dung,"  etc. 

6  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  81. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  340.  A  revolting  collection  of  low  abuse  of  the  lawyers 
might  be  made  from  the  Table-Talk,  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  60,  pp.  229,  233, 
235,  244,  246  f. 


234         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

satirist  Lemnius  for  some  filthy  verses,1  and  the  following 
prediction  to  his  Zwickau  opponents :  "  When  trouble 
befalls  them,  whenever  it  may  be,  they  will  '  in  die  Hoscn 
scheissen  und  ein'  solchen  Gestanck  anrichten  '  that  nobody 
will  be  able  to  tarry  in  their  neighbourhood."2 

It  is  also  difficult  for  us  to  tarry  any  longer  over  these 
texts,  especially  as  in  what  follows  we  shall  meet  with 
others  of  a  similar  character.3 

Not  to  do  injustice  to  the  general  character  of  Luther's 
Table-Talk,  we  must  again  lay  stress  on  the  fact,  that  very 
many  of  his  evening  conversations  are  of  irreproachable 
propriety.  We  may  peruse  many  pages  of  the  notes  without 
meeting  anything  in  the  least  offensive,  but  much  that  is 
both  fine  and  attractive.  Events  of  the  day,  history,  nature, 
politics  or  the  Bible,  form  in  turn  the  subject-matter  of  the 
Table-Talk,  and  much  of  what  was  said  was  true,  witty  and 
not  seldom  quite  edifying. 

Still,  the  fact  remains  that  filthy  talking  and  vulgarity 
came  so  natural  to  Luther  as  to  constitute  a  questionable 
side  to  his  character. 

Even  when  writing  seriously,  and  in  works  intended  for 
the  general  public,  he  seems  unable  to  bridle  his  pen. 

In  the  book  "  Wider  das  Bapstum  zu  Rom  vom  Teuffel  gestifft," 
he  introduces,  for  instance,  the  following  dialogue  :  "  We  have 
enacted  in  our  Decretals  [say  the  Papists]  that  only  the  Pope 
shall  summon  Councils  and  appoint  to  benefices.  [Luther]  :  My 
friend,  is  that  really  true  ?  Who  commanded  you  to  decree 
this  ?  [Answer] :  Be  silent,  you  heretic,  what  proceeds  from  our 
mouth  must  be  hearkened  to.  [Luther] :  So  you  say  ;  but  which 
mouth  do  you  mean  ?  Da  die  Forze  ausfahren  ?  To  such  an 
opinion  you  are  welcome.  Or  that  into  which  good  Corso  [wine] 
is  poured  ?  Da  scheiss  ein  Hund  ein  !  [Answer]  :  Out  upon 
you,  you  shameless  Luther,  is  it  thus  you  talk  to  the  Pope  ? 
[Luther]  :  Out  upon  you  rather,  you  rude  asses  and  blasphemous 
desperadoes,  to  address  the  Emperor  and  the  Empire  in  such  a 
manner  !  How  can  you  venture  to  insult  and  slight  four  such 
great  Councils  and  the  four  greatest  Christian  Emperors  '  umb 
euer    Forze    und   Drecketal    [sic]  willen  ? '     What  reason  have 

1  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  139,  with  the  disgusting  verses  : 
"  Ventre  urges  merdam  vellesque  cacare  libenter  \  ingentem.  Facis  at, 
merdipoeta,  nihil."  Within  ten  lines  the  word  "  merda  "  occurs  twelve 
times.     Cp.  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  673,  N.  422. 

2  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  48. 

3  See  the  detailed  examples  given  in  vol.  iv.,  xxv.  3. 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  TABLE-TALK     235 

you  to  think  yourselves  anything  but  big,  rude,  senseless  fools 
and  donkeys  ?  "x 

Before  this  he  says  in  the  same  work,  in  personal  abuse  of  Pope 
Paul  III. :  "  Dear  donkey,  don't  lick  !  Oh,  dear  little  Pope-ass, 
were  you  to  fall  and  some  filth  escape  you,  how  all  the  world 
would  mock  at  you  and  say  :  Lo,  how  the  Pope-ass  has  disgraced 
itself  !  .  .  .  Oh,  fiendish  Father,  do  not  be  unmindful  of  your 
great  danger."2 

"  Dr.  Luther  is  a  rough  sort  of  fellow  ;  were  he  to  hear  that, 
he  would  rush  in  booted  and  spurred  like  a  countryman  and 
say  :  The  Pope  had  been  thrust  into  the  Church  by  all  the  devils 
from  hell."3  "  '  As  much  as  the  sun  is  greater  than  the  moon, 
so  does  the  Pope  excel  the  Emperor.'  .  .  .  Hearken,  reader  ;  if 
you  forget  yourself  and  your  nether  garments  have  to  be  fumi- 
gated with  incense  and  juniper,  from  such  a  reeking  sin  the 
Most  Holy  Father  would  never  absolve  you."4 

'  Whatsoever  you  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven.' 
'  Whatsoever  '  means  [according  to  the  Catholics]  all  that  there 
is  on  earth,  churches,  bishops,  emperors,  kings  and  possibly 
'  alle  Forze  aller  Esel  und  sein  eigen  Forze  audi.'  Ah,  dear 
brother  in  Christ,  put  it  down  to  my  credit  when  I  speak  here 
and  elsewhere  so  rudely  of  the  cursed,  noxious,  ungainly  monster 
at  Rome.  Whoever  knows  my  mind  must  admit  that  I  am  far, 
far  too  lenient,  and  that  no  words  or  thoughts  of  mine  could 
repay  his  shameful  and  desperate  abuse  of  the  Word  and  Name 
of  Christ,  our  beloved  Lord  and  Saviour."5 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  262,  p.  149. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  148.    Cp.  above,  p.  151,  n.  3.  3  Ibid.,  p.  169  f. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  173  f.  Jonas,  in  his  Latin  edition  of  the  work  "  Wider 
das  Bapstum,"  rendered  the  passage  :  "  Ne  sine  ullo  laxativo  vel 
pillulis  ventris  onere  honores  papam"  etc. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  201.  Cp.  Luther's  insolent  language  towards  the 
Pope  in  his  other  writings  and  letters ;  for  instance,  when  he 
declares  that  the  Princes  who  were  not  on  his  own  side  were  "  dem 
Papst  in  den  Arsch  gebacken  "  ("  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  45,  p.  398)  ;    or  : 

"  I  s on  the  dispensation  of  the  legate  and  his  master  "  (Brief  - 

wechsel,"  8,  p.  53  ;  cp.  p.  113) ;  or  "  that  Pope  and  Legate  '  im  Arsch 
wollten  lecken  '  "  ("  Briefwecbsel,"  8,  p.  233).  As  early  as  1518,  in  a 
Lenten  sermon,  he  shows  his  predisposition  to  crudity :  "  If  we  drag 
our  good  works  into  the  light,  '  so  soil  der  Teufel  den  Arsch  daran 
wischen,'  as  indeed  he  does  "  ("  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  276).  Cp. 
also  his  discourse  in  1515  against  the  "  Little  Saints  "  (vol.  i.,  p.  69  f.). 
In  the  saying  just  referred  to  he  is  playing  on  a  coarse  proverb.  In  his 
collection  of  proverbs  (not  intended  for  publication,  but  edited  by 
Thiele)  he  has  accumulated  quite  a  number  of  filthy  sayings,  those  con- 
taining the  word  "  Dreck  "  being  unpleasantly  numerous.  Many  of  the 
obscenities  occurring  in  his  sermons  and  writings  were  suggested  by 
proverbs  which  themselves  reek  too  much  of  the  stable,  but  which  he 
sometimes  still  further  embellishes.  The  manner  in  which  he  uses  the 
gross  word  "  Farzen  "  with  reference  to  the  Pope  or  the  monks  can  be 
seen  in  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  8,  p.  715,  and  Erl.  ed.,  25 2,  p.  74.  In  one 
of  his  attacks  on  the  Jews  he  says  :  "  Kiss  the  pig  on  its  '  Pacem '  and 
'  Pirzl,'  "  etc.  ("  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  32,  p.  211)  ;  and  again  :  "  Here, 
here    for   a  kiss  !      The    devil   has    '  in   die  Hosen  geschmissen   und 


236  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

"  I  must  cease,"  Luther  says  elsewhere  in  his  "  Wider  das 
Bapstum,"  after  speaking  of  a  Decretal,  "  I  cannot  bear  to 
wallow  any  longer  in  this  blasphemous,  hellish,  devils'  filth  and 
stench  ;  let  someone  else  read  it.  Whoever  wants  to  listen  to 
God's  Word,  let  him  read  Holy  Writ  ;  whoever  prefers  to  listen 
to  the  devil's  word,  let  him  read  the  Pope's  Drecket  [sic]  and 
Bulls,"  etc.1 

We  must  here  consider  more  closely  the  statement,  already 
alluded  to,  made  by  some  of  Luther's  apologists.  To  remove 
the  unfavourable  impression  left  on  the  mind  of  present-day 
readers  by  his  unbridled  language  an  attempt  has  been 
made  to  represent  it  as  having  been  quite  the  usual  thing  in 
Luther's  day. 

It  is  true  that,  saving  some  expressions  peculiar  to  the 

Saxon  peasant,  such  obscenity  is  to  be  met  with  among  the 

neo-Humanist  writers  of  that  age,  both  in  Germany  and 

abroad.     Even  Catholic  preachers  in  Germany,  following 

the  manners  of  the  time,  show  but  scant  consideration  for 

the  delicacy  of  their  hearers  when  speaking  of  sexual  matters 

or  of  the  inferior  functions  of  the  human  body.    It  is  quite 

impossible  to  set  up  a  definite  standard  of  what  is  becoming, 

which  shall  apply  equally  to  every  age  and  every  state  of 

civilisation.     But  if  Luther's  defenders  desire  to  exonerate 

him  by  comparing  him  with  others,  it  is  clear  that  they  are 

not  justified  in  adducing  examples  taken  from  burlesque, 

popular  writers,    light    literature,    or    even    from    certain 

writings  of  the  Humanists.     The  filth  contained  in  these 

works  had  been  denounced  by  many  a  better  author  even 

in  that  age.    Luther,  as  already  explained  (vol.  ii.,  p.  150  f.), 

must  not  be  judged  by  a  profane  standard,  but  by  that  which 

befits  a  writer  on  religion  and  the  spiritual  life,  a  reformer 

and  founder  of  a  new  religion.    The  fact  remains  that  it  is 

impossible  to  instance   any  popular  religious  writer  who 

ever  went  so  far  as,  or  even   approached,  Luther  in  his 

lack  of  restraint  in  this  particular.     Luther,  in  the  matter 

of  licentiousness  of  language,  stands  out  as  a  giant  apart. 

den  Bauch  abermal  geleeret.'  This  is  indeed  a  holy  thing  for  the  Jews, 
and  all  would-be  Jews  to  kiss,  eat,  drink,  and  worship,  while  the  devil 
in  his  turn  must  eat  and  drink  what  his  disciples  '  speien,  oben  und 
unten  auswerfen  konnen.'  Host  and  guest  have  indeed  met,  have 
cooked  and  served  the  meat  .  .  .  The  devil  is  feasting  with  his  English 
[angelic  ?]  snout  and  gobbles  up  greedily  whatever  '  der  Juden  un teres 
und  oberes  Maul  speiet  und  spritzet.'  Yes,  that  is  the  dainty  he  enjoys  " 
("Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  32,  p.  282). 
1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  262,  p.  203. 


SCANDAL  OF  CONTEMPORARIES     237 

The  passages  to  be  quoted  later  on  marriage  and  the  sexual 
question  will  make  this  still  more  apparent. 

His  own  contemporaries  declared  aloud  that  he  stood 
quite  alone  in  the  matter  of  coarseness  and  in  his  incessant 
use  of  vituperation  ;  Catholics,  such  as  Dungersheim,  and 
opponents  of  the  Catholic  Church  like  Bullinger,  testify 
alike  in  the  strongest  terms  to  the  impression  made  upon 
them.  Some  of  their  numerous  statements  will  be  quoted 
below.  We  may,  however,  remark  that  the  severest 
strictures  of  all  came  from  Sir  Thomas  More,  who,  for  all 
his  kindliness  of  disposition,  condemned  most  indignantly 
the  filthy  language  of  the  assailant  of  King  Henry  VIII.  of 
England.  The  untranslatable  passage  may  be  read  in  its 
Latin  original  in  the  note  below.1  Caspar  Schatzgeyer, 
another  learned  opponent  of  Luther's,  and  likewise  a  man 
of  mild  temper,  also  rebuked  Luther  with  great  vehemence 
for  the  ignoble  and  coarse  tone  he  was  wont  to  employ 
against  theological  adversaries  ;  he  plainly  hints  that  no 
one  within  living  memory  had  brought  into  the  literary 
arena  such  an  arsenal  of  obscene  language.  Luther  behaved 
"  like  a  conqueror,  assured  by  the  spirit  that  he  was  able  to 
walk  upon  the  sea."  Spirits  must,  however,  be  tried.  "  The 
triumphal  car  of  the  victor  can  only  be  awarded  to  Luther 
and  his  followers  if  it  be  admitted  that  to  triumph  is 
synonymous  with  befouling  the  face  and  garments  of  all  foes 
with  vituperative  filth  ('  conviciorum  stercora),  so  that  they 
are  forced  to  save  themselves  by  flight  from  the  intolerable 
stench  and  dirt.  Never  in  any  literary  struggle  has  such  an 
array  of  weapons  of  that  sort  been  seen."  One  could  well 
understand  how  such  a  man  inspired  fear  amongst  all  who 
valued  the  cleanliness  of  their  garments.  Well  might  he  be 
left  to  triumph  with  his  assertion,  which  his  adversaries 
would  be  the  last  to  gainsay,  "  that  everything  which  is  not 
Gospel,  must  make  room  for  the  Gospel."2 

1  Such  was  the  writer's  indignation  that  his  words  are  scarcely 
worthy  of  a  Humanist.  The  following  conies  from  the  "  Responsio  ad 
convitia  Lutheri  "  (1523,  "  Opera."  Lovanii,  1566,  p.  1 16'),  not  published 
under  More's  own  name  :  "  Nihil  habet  in  ore  (Lutherus)  praetir 
latrinas,  merdas,  stercora,  quibus  foedius  et  spurcius  quam  ullus  unquam 
scurra  scurratur.  .  .  .  Si  pergat  scurrilitate  ludere  nee  aliud  in  ore 
gesture  quam  sentinas,  cloacas,  latrinas,  merdas,  stercora,  faciant  quod 
volent  alii,  nos  ex  tempore  capiemus  consilium,  velimusne  sic  bacchantem 
.   .  .  cum  suis  merdis  et  stercoribus  cacantem  cacalumque  relinquere.''' 

2  In  "Replica  contra  periculosajcripta,"  etc.,  1522,  O,  4'.  Also  in 
"Opp.  omnia,"  Ingolstadii,  1543. 


238         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

Some  have  gone  so  far  as  to  say,  that  the  tone  of  the 
popular  religious  writers  of  the  period,  from  1450-1550,  was 
frequently  so  vulgar  that  there  is  little  to  choose  between 
them  and  Luther.  This  is  an  unfair  and  unhistorical 
aspersion  on  a  sort  of  literature  then  much  read  and  which, 
though  now  little  known,  is  slowly  coming  to  its  due  owing 
to  research.  We  may  call  to  mind  the  long  list  of  those  in 
whose  writings  Luther  could  have  found  not  merely  models 
of  decency  and  good  taste — which  might  well  have  shamed 
him — but  also  much  else  worthy  of  imitation  ;  for  instance, 
Thomas  a  Kempis,  Jacob  Wimpfeling,  Johann  Men  sing, 
Johann  Hoffmeister,  Michael  Vehe,  Johann  Wild,  Matthias 
Sittard,  Caspar  Schatzgeyer,  Hieronymus  Dungersheim, 
Ulrich  Krafft,  Johannes  Fabri,  Marcus  de  Weida,  Johann 
Staupitz,  and  lastly  Peter  Canisius,  who  also  belonged 
practically  to  this  period.  Many  other  popular  religious 
authors  might  be  enumerated,  but  it  is  impossible  to  instance 
a  single  one  among  them  who  would  have  descended  to  the 
level  of  the  language  employed  by  Luther. 

Moreover,  those  secular  writers  of  that  day  whose  offensive 
crudities  have  been  cited  in  excuse  of  Luther,  all  differed 
from  him  in  one  particular,  viz.  they  did  not  employ  these 
as  he  did,  or  at  least  not  to  the  same  extent,  as  contro- 
versial weapons.  It  is  one  thing  to  collect  dirty  stories  and 
to  dwell  on  them  at  inordinate  length  in  order  to  pander 
to  the  depraved  taste  of  the  mob  ;  it  is  quite  another  to 
pelt  an  enemy  with  filthy  abuse.  Hate  and  fury  only  make 
a  vulgar  tone  more  repulsive.  There  are  phrases  used  by 
Luther  against  theological  adversaries  which  no  benevolent 
interpretation  avails  to  excuse.  Such  was  his  rude  answer 
to  the  request  of  the  Augsburgers  (above,  p.  233),  or,  again, 
"  I  would  rather  advise  you  to  drink  Malvasian  wine  and 
to  believe  in  Christ  alone,  and  leave  the  monk  (who  through 
being  a  monk  has  denied  Christ)  to  swill  water  or  '  seinen 
eigenen  Urin.'  "* 

It  may  occur  to  one  to  plead  in  justification  the  language 
of  the  peasants  of  that  day,  and  it  must  be  conceded,  that, 
even  now,  in  certain  districts  the  countryman's  talk  is  such 
as  can  only  be  appreciated  in  the  country.  The  author  of  a 
book,  "  Wie  das  Volk  spricht  "  (1855),  who  made  a  study  of 
the  people  in  certain  regions  not  particularly  remarkable 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  47,  p.  315. 


LUTHER  SETS   THE  FASHION      239 

for  culture  or  refinement,  says  quite  rightly  in  his  Preface, 
that  his  examples  are  often  quite  unsuited  "  for  the  ears  of 
ladies,  and  those  of  a  timorous  disposition  "  ;  "  the  common 
people  don't  wear  kid  gloves."  This  writer  was  dealing  with 
the  present  day,  yet  one  might  ask  what  indulgence  an 
author  would  find  were  he  to  draw  his  language  from  such 
a  source,  particularly  did  he  happen  to  be  a  theologian,  a 
spiritual  writer  or  a  reformer  ?  Luther  undoubtedly  savours 
of  his  time,  but  his  expressions  are  too  often  reminiscent  of 
Saxon  familiarity;  for  instance,  when  he  vents  his  displeasure 
in  the  words  :  "  The  devil  has  given  his  mother  '  eine  Fliege 
in  den  Hintern.'  "* 

Luther  was  fond  of  introducing  indelicacies  of  this  sort 
even  into  theological  tracts  written  in  Latin  and  destined 
for  the  use  of  the  learned,  needless  to  say  to  the  huge  scandal 
of  foreigners  not  accustomed  to  find  such  coarseness  in  the 
treatment  of  serious  subjects.  Under  the  circumstances  we 
can  readily  understand  the  indignation  of  men  like  Sir 
Thomas  More  (above,  p.  237,  n.  1)  at  the  rudeness  of 
the  German. 

Luther's  example  proved  catching  among  his  followers 
and  supporters.  A  crowd  of  writers  became  familiar  with 
the  mention  of  subjects  on  which  a  discreet  silence  is  usually 
observed,  and  grew  accustomed  to  use  words  hitherto 
banished  from  polite  society.  So  well  were  Luther's  works 
known  that  they  set  the  tone.  His  favourite  pupils, 
Mathesius*  and  Aurifaber,  for  instance,  seem  scarcely  aware 
of  the  unseemliness  of  certain  questions  discussed.  Sleidan, 
the  well-known  Humanist  historian,  described  the  obscene 
woodcuts  published  by  Luther  and  Lucas  Cranach  in  1545 
in  mockery  of  the  Papacy,  "  as  calmly  as  though  they  had 
been  no  worse  than  Mr.  Punch's  kindly  caricatures."2 
Luther  actually  told  the  theologians  and  preachers  (and  his 
words  carried  even  more  weight  with  secular  writers,  who 
were  less  hampered  by  considerations  of  decency)  that 
"  those  who  filled  the  office  of  preacher  must  hold  the  filth 
of  the  Pope  and  the  bishops  up  to  their  very  noses,"3  for 
the  "  Roman  court,  and  the  Pope  who  is  the  bishop  of  that 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  262,  p.  57. 

2  Bohmer,   "  Luther  im  Lichte  der  neueren  Forschung,"  p.    72  ; 
2  ed.,  p.  106. 

3  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  45,  p.  153  ;  cp.  44.  p   321. 


240         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

court,  is  the  devil's  bishop,  the  devil  himself,  nay,  the 
excrement  which  the  devil  has  .  .  .  into  the  Church."1 

One  of  Luther's  most  ardent  defenders  in  the  present  day, 
Wilhelm  Walther  of  Rostock,  exonerates  Luther  from  any 
mere  imitation  of  the  customary  language  of  the  peasants 
or  the  monks,  for,  strange  to  say,  some  have  seen  in  his  tone 
the  influence  of  monasticism;  he  claims  originality  for  Luther. 
"  Such  a  mode  of  expression,"  he  says,  "  was  not  in  Luther's 
case  the  result  of  his  peasant  extraction  or  of  his  earlier  life. 
For,  far  from  becoming  gradually  less  noticeable  as  years 
went  on,  it  is  most  apparent  in  his  old  age."2  It  is  plain 
that  Luther's  earlier  Catholic  life  cannot  be  held  responsible, 
nor  the  monastic  state  of  celibacy,  often  misjudged  though 
it  has  been  in  certain  quarters.  As  regards  the  reassertion 
in  him  of  the  peasant's  son,  we  are  at  liberty  to  think  what 
we  please.  At  any  rate,  we  cannot  but  endorse  what  Walther 
says  concerning  the  steady  growth  of  the  disorder  ;  in  all 
likelihood  the  applause  which  greeted  his  popular  and 
vigorous  style  reacted  on  Luther  and  tended  to  confirm  him 
in  his  literary  habits.  As  years  passed  he  grew  more  and 
more  anxious  that  every  word  should  strike  home,  and 
delighted  in  stamping  all  he  wrote  with  the  individuality  of 
"  rude  Luther."  Under  the  circumstances  it  was  inevitable 
that  his  style  should  suffer. 

Walther  thinks  he  has  found  the  real  explanation  in 
Luther's  "  energy  of  character  "  and  the  depth  of  his  "  moral 
feeling  "  ;  here,  according  to  him,  we  have  caifse  of  his 
increasingly  lurid  language ;  Luther,  "  in  his  wish  to 
achieve  something,"  and  to  bring  "  his  excellent  ideas  " 
home  to  the  man  in  the  street,  of  set  purpose  disregarded  the 
"esthetic  feelings  of  his  readers"  and  his  own  "  reputation 
as  a  writer."  Melanchthon,  says  Walther,  "  took  offence 
at  his  smutty  language.  Luther's  reply  was  to  make  it 
smuttier  still." 

This  line  of  defence  is  remarkable  enough  to  deserve  to  be 
chronicled.  From  the  historical  standpoint,  however,  we 
should  bear  in  mind  that  Luther  had  recourse  to  "  smutti- 
ness  "  not  merely  in  theological  and  religious  writings  or 
when  desirous  of  producing  some  effect  with  "  his  excellent 

/ 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  44,  p.  296.     In  a  sermon. 

2  Lutherophilus  (Willi.  Walther),  "  Das  sechste  Gebot  und  Luthers 
Leben,"  1893,  p.  33  f. ;  and  "  Fur  Luther,"  p.  593  ff. 


CHRISTIAN  CHASTITY  241 

ideas."  The  bad  habit  clings  to  him  quite  as  much  elsewhere, 
and  disfigures  his  most  commonplace  conversations  and 
casual  sallies. 

Thus  the  psychological  root  of  the  problem  lies  somewhat 
deeper.  We  shall  not  be  far  wrong  in  believing,  that  a  man 
who  moved  habitually  amidst  such  impure  imaginations, 
and  gave  unrestrained  expression  to  statements  of  a 
character  so  offensive,  bore  within  himself  the  cause. 
Luther  was  captain  in  a  violent  warfare  on  vows,  religious 
rules,  celibacy  and  many  other  ordinances  and  practices  of 
the  Church,  which  had  formerly  served  as  barriers  against 
sensuality.  Consciously  or  unconsciously  his  rude  nature 
led  him  to  cast  off  the  fetters  of  shame  which  had  once  held 
him  back  from  what  was  low  and  vulgar.  After  all,  language 
is  the  sign  and  token  of  what  is  felt  within.  It  was  chiefly 
his  own  renunciation  of  the  higher  standard  of  life  which  led 
him  to  abandon  politeness  in  speech  and  controversy,  and, 
in  word  and  imagery,  to  sink  into  ever  lower  depths.  Such 
is  most  likely  the  correct  answer  to  the  psychological 
problem  presented  by  the  steady  growth  of  this  question- 
able element  in  his  language. 

Friedrich  Wilhclm  Nietzsche  ("  Werke,"  7,  p.  401)  has 
a  few  words,  not  devoid  of  admiration  for  Luther,  which, 
however,  apply  to  the  whole  man  and  not  merely  to  his 
habits  of  speech.  They  may  well  serve  as  a  transition  to 
what  follows  :  "  Luther's  merit  lies  in  this,  that  he  pos- 
sessed the  courage  of  his  sensuality — in  those  days  tactfully 
described  as  the  '  freedom  of  the  Gospel.'  " 

5.  On  Marriage  and  Sexuality- 
Christianity,  with  its  doctrine  of  chastity,  brought  into 
the  heathen  world  a  new  and  vital  element.  It  not  only 
inculcated  the  controlling  of  the  sexual  instinct  by  modesty 
and  the  fear  of  God,  but,  in  accordance  with  the  words  of  our 
Saviour  and  His  Apostle,  St.  Paul,  it  represented  voluntary 
renunciation  of  marriage  and  a  virgin  life  as  more  perfect 
and  meritorious  in  God's  sight.  What  appeared  so  entirely 
foreign  to  the  demands  of  nature,  the  Christian  religion 
characterised  as  really  not  only  attainable,  but  fraught  with 
happiness  for  those  who  desired  to  follow  the  counsel  of 
Christ  and  who  trusted  in  the  omnipotence  of  His  grace. 

III.— R 


242         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

The  sublime  example  of  our  Lord  Himself,  of  His  Holy 
Mother,  and  of  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  also  St.  Paul's 
praise  for  virginity  and  the  magnificent  description  in  the 
Apocalypse  of  the  triumphal  throng  of  virgins  who  follow 
the  Lamb,  chanting  a  song  given  to  them  alone  to  sing — all 
this  inspired  more  generous  souls  to  tread  with  cheerfulness 
the  meritorious  though  thorny  path  of  continence.  Besides 
these,  countless  millions,  who  did  not  choose  to  live  un- 
wedded,  but  were  impelled  by  their  circumstances  to 
embrace  the  married  state,  learnt  in  the  school  of  Christi- 
anity, with  the  help  of  God's  grace,  that  in  matrimony  too 
it  was  possible  for  them  to  serve  God  cheerfully  and  to  gain 
everlasting  salvation. 

The  Necessity  of  Marriage.     . 

After  having  violated  his  monastic  vows,  Luther  not 
only  lost  a  true  appreciation  of  the  celibate  state  when 
undertaken  for  the  love  of  God,  but  also  became  disposed 
to  exaggerate  the  strength  of  the  sexual  instinct  in  man, 
to  such  an  extent,  that,  according  to  him,  extra-matrimonial 
misconduct  was  almost  unavoidable  to  the  unmarried. 
In  this  conviction  his  erroneous  ideas  concerning  man's 
inability  for  doing  what  is  good  play  a  great  part.  He 
lays  undue  stress  on  the  alleged  total  depravity  of  man  and 
represents  him  as  the  helpless  plaything  of  his  evil  desires 
and  passions,  until  at  last  it  pleases  God  to  work  in  him. 
At  the  same  time  the  strength  of  some  of  his  statements  on 
the  necessity  of  marriage  is  due  to  controversial  interests  ; 
to  the  desire  to  make  an  alluring  appeal  to  the  senses  of 
those  bound  by  vows  or  by  the  ecclesiastical  state,  to  become 
unfaithful  to  the  promises  they  had  made  to  the  Almighty. 
Unfortunately  the  result  too  often  was  that  Luther's 
invitation  was  made  to  serve  as  an  excuse  for  a  life  which 
did  not  comply  even  with  the  requirements  of  ordinary 
morality. 

"  As  little  as  it  is  in  my  power,"  Luther  proclaims,  "  that  I 
am  not  a  woman,  so  little  ami  free  to  remain  without  a  wife."1 

"It  is  a  terrible  thing,"  he  writes  with  glaring  exaggeration 
to  Albert,  Archbishop  of  Mayence,  "  for  a  man  to  be  found  without 
a  wife  in  the  hour  of  death  ;   at  the  very  least  he  should  have  an 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  276  ;  Erl.  ed.,  162,  p.  511.  Sermon 
on  the  Married  Life,  1522,  i.e.  long  before  his  own  marriage. 


NECESSITY  OF   MARRIAGE         243 

earnest  purpose  of  getting  married.  For  what  will  he  say  when 
God  asks  him  :  '  I  made  you  a  man,  not  to  stand  alone  but  to 
take  a  wife  ;   where  then  is  your  wife  ? '  "1 

To  another  cleric  who  fancied  himself  compelled  to  marry,  he 
writes  in  the  year  of  his  own  wedding  :  "  Your  body  demands 
and  needs  it  ;    God  wills  it  and  insists  upon  it."2 

"  Because  they  [the  Papists]  rejected  marriage  [!],"  he  says, 
"  and  opposed  the  ordinance  of  God  and  the  clear  testimony 
and  witness  of  Scripture,  therefore  they  fell  into  fornication, 
adultery,  etc.,  to  their  destruction."3 

"  Just  as  the  sun  has  no  power  to  stop  shining,  so  also  is  it 
implanted  in  human  nature,  whether  male  or  female,  to  be 
fruitful.  That  God  makes  exceptions  of  some,  as,  for  instance, 
on  the  one  hand  of  the  bodily  infirm  and  impotent,  and  on  the 
other  of  certain  exalted  natures,  must  be  regarded  in  the  same 
light  as  other  miracles.  .  .  .  Therefore  it  is  likewise  not  my  will 
that  such  should  marry."4 

"  A  man  cannot  dispense  with  a  wife  for  this  reason  :  The 
natural  instinct  to  beget  children  is  as  deeply  implanted  as  that 
of  eating  and  drinking."  Hence  it  is  that  God  formed  the 
human  body  in  the  manner  He  did,  which  Luther  thereupon 
proceeds  to  describe  to  his  readers  in  detail.5 

"  Before  marriage  we  are  on  fire  and  rave  after  a  woman.  .  .  . 
St.  Jerome  writes  much  of  the  temptations  of  the  flesh.  Yet 
that  is  a  trivial  matter.  A  wife  in  the  house  will  remedy  that 
malady.  Eustochia  [Eustochium]  might  have  helped  and 
counselled  Jerome."6 

One  sentence  of  Luther's,  which,  as  it  stands,  scarcely  does 
honour  to  the  female  sex,  runs  as  follows  :  "  The  Word  and 
work  of  God  is  quite  clear,  viz.  that  women  were  made  to  be 
either  wives  or  prostitutes."7 

By  this  statement,  which  so  easily  lends  itself  to  misunder- 
standing, Luther  does  not  mean  to  put  women  in  the  alternative 
of  choosing  either  marriage  or  vice.  In  another  passage  of  the 
same  writing  he  says  distinctly,  what  he  repeats  also  elsewhere  : 
"It  is  certain  that  He  [God]  does  not  create  any  woman  to  be  a 
prostitute."  Still,  it  is  undeniable  that  in  the  above  passage,  in 
his  recommendation  of  marriage,  he  allows  himself  to  be  carried 
away  to  the  use  of  untimely  language. — In  others  of  the  passages 
cited  he  modifies  his  brutal  proclamation  of  the  force  of  the 
sexual  craving,  and  the  inevitable  necessity  of  marriage,  by 
statements  to  quite  another  effect,  though  these  are  scarcely 
noticeable  amid  the  wealth  of  words  which  he  expends  in  favour 

1  Letter  of  June  2,  1525,  ibid.,  53,  p.  311  ;  Letters,  ed.  De  Wette,  2, 
676  ("  Brief wechsel,"  5,  p.  186). 

2  To  Reissenbusch,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  18,  p.  276  f.  ;  Erl.  ed., 
53,  p.  286  ("  Brief  wechsel,"  5,  p.  145). 

3  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  191. 

4  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  24,  p.  53  ff. 

5  Ibid.,  10,  2,  p.  156  =  28,  p.  199. 

6  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  61,  p.  196. 

'  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed ,  12,  p.  94  ;   Erl.  ed.,  51,  p.  6. 


244         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

of  man's  sensual  nature  ;  for  instance,  he  speaks  of  the  "  holy 
virgins,"  who  "  live  in  the  flesh  as  though  not  of  the  flesh,  thanks 
to  God's  sublime  grace."1  "The  grace  of  chastity"2  was,  he 
admits,  sometimes  bestowed  by  God,  yet  he  speaks  of  the  person 
who  possesses  it  as  a  "  prodigy  of  God's  own  "  ;3  such  a  one  it  is 
hard  to  find,  for  such  a  man  is  no  "natural  man."4  Such 
extravagant  stress  laid  on  the  fewness  of  these  exceptions  might, 
however,  be  refuted  from  his  own  words  ;  for  instance,  he  urges 
a  woman  whose  husband  is  ill  to  do  her  best  with  the  ordinary 
grace  of  God  bestowed  on  her  as  on  all  others,  and  endure  with 
patience  the  absence  of  marital  intercourse.  "  God  is  much  too 
just  to  rob  you  of  your  husband  by  sickness  in  this  way  without 
on  the  other  hand  taking  away  the  wantonness  of  the  flesh,  if 
you  on  your  part  tend  the  sick  man  faithfully."5 

That  for  most  men  it  is  more  advisable  to  marry  than  to 
practise  continence  had  never  been  questioned  for  a  moment  by 
Catholics,  and  if  Luther  had  been  speaking  merely  to  the  majority 
of  mankind,  as  some  have  alleged  he  was,  his  very  opponents 
could  not  but  have  applauded  him.  It  is,  however,  as  impossible 
to  credit  him  with  so  moderate  a  recommendation  as  it  is  to 
defend  another  theory  put  forward  by  Protestants,  viz.  that 
his  sole  intention  was  to  point  out  "  that  the  man  in  whom 
the  sexual  instinct  is  at  work  cannot  help  being  sensible  of  it." 

His  real  view,  as  so  frequently  described  by  himself,  is 
linked  up  to  some  extent  with  his  own  personal  experiences 
after  he  had  abandoned  the  monastic  life.  It  can  scarcely  be  by 
mere  chance  that  a  number  of  passages  belonging  here  syn- 
chronise with  his  stay  at  the  Wartburg,  and  that  his  admission 
to  his  friend  Melanchthon  ("I  burn  in  the  flames  of  my  carnal 
desires  .  .  .  '  ferveo  came,  libidine'  ")6  should  also  date  from 
this  time. 

In  an  exposition  often  quoted  from  his  course  of  sermons  on 
Exodus,  Luther  describes  with  great  exaggeration  the  violence 
and  irresistibility  of  the  carnal  instinct  in  man,  in  order  to  con- 
clude as  usual  that  ecclesiastical  celibacy  is  an  abomination. 
His  strange  words,  which  might  so  readily  be  misunderstood, 
call  for  closer  consideration  than  is  usually  accorded  them  ;  they, 
too,  furnished  a  pretext  for  certain  far-fetched  charges  against 
Luther. 

1  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.  18,  p.  276  =  53;  p.  288;  "  Brief e,"  ed. 
De  Wette,  2,  p.  639  ("  Briefwechsel,"  5,  p.  145). 

2  Ibid.,  p.  410  =  311=676  (to  Archbishop  Albert  of  Mayence). 

3  Ibid.,  10,  2,  p.  279  =  162,  p.  515,  in  sermon  quoted  above,  p.  242, 
n.  1;  Luther  here  speaks  of  "  three  kinds  of  men  "  whom  God  has  ex- 
empted from  matrimony. 

4  In  the  letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Mayence.  "  I  speak  of  the 
natural  man.  With  those  to  whom  God  gives  the  grace  of  chastity  I  do 
not  interfere." 

5  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  291  f.  ;'  Erl.  ed.,  162,  p.  527  f. 
"  Vom  Eelichen  Leben,"  1522. 

6  Letter  of  July  13,  1521,  "Briefwechsel,"  3,  p.  189.  Cp.  our 
vol.  ii.,  pp.  82  f.,  94  f. 


NECESSITY  OF  MARRIAGE         245 

With  the  Sixth  Commandment,  says  Luther,  God  "  scolds, 
mocks  and  derides  us  "  ;  this  Commandment  shows  that  the 
world  is  full  of  "  adulterers  and  adulteresses,"  all  are  "  whore- 
mongers "  ;  on  account  of  our  lusts  and  sensuality  God  accounted 
us  as  such  and  so  gave  us  the  Sixth  Commandment  ;  to  a  man 
of  good  conduct  it  would  surely  be  an  insult  to  say  :  "  My  good 
fellow,  see  you  keep  your  plighted  troth  !  "  God,  however, 
wished  to  show  us  "  what  we  really  are."  "  Though  we  may 
not  be  so  openly  before  the  world  [i.e.  adulterers  and  whore- 
mongers], yet  we  are  so  at  heart,  and,  had  we  opportunity,  time 
and  occasion,  we  should  all  commit  adultery.  It  is  implanted 
in  all  men,  and  no  one  is  exempt  .  .  .  we  brought  it  with  us 
from  our  mother's  womb."1  Luther  does  not  here  wish  to 
represent  adultery  as  a  universal  and  almost  inevitable  vice,  or 
to  minimise  its  sinfulness.  Here,  as  so  often  elsewhere,  he 
perceives  he  has  gone  too  far  and  thereupon  proceeds  to  explain 
his  real  meaning.  "I  do  not  say  that  we  are  so  in  very  deed, 
but  that  such  is  our  inclination,  and  it  is  the  heart  that  God 
searches."  Luther  is  quite  willing  to  admit  :  "  There  are  certainly 
many  who  do  not  commit  fornication,  but  lead  quite  a  good  life  "  ; 
"  this  is  due  either  to  God's  grace,  or  to  fear  of  Master  Hans  " 
(the  hangman).  "  Our  reason  tells  us  that  fornication,  adultery 
and  other  sins  are  wrong.  .  .  .  All  these  laws  are  decreed  by 
nature  itself,"  just  like  the  Commandment  not  to  commit  murder.2 
"  But  we  are  so  mad,"  "  when  once  our  passions  are  aroused, 
that  we  forget  everything."  Hence  we  cannot  but  believe,  that 
"  even  though  our  monks  vowed  chastity  twice  over,"  they  were 
adulterers  in  God's  sight.  The  conclusion  he  arrives  at  is  : 
"  Such  being  our  nature,  God  forbids  no  one  to  take  a  wife." 

The  whole  passage  is  only  another  instance  of  Luther's  desire 
to  magnify  the  consequences  of  original  sin  without  making  due 
allowance  for  the  remedies  provided  by  Christianity,  the  sacra- 
ments in  particular.  It  is  also  in  keeping  with  his  usual  method 
of  clothing  his  attack  on  Catholicism  in  the  most  bitter  and 
repulsive  language,  a  method  which  gradually  became  a  second 
nature  to  him. 

In  insisting  on  the  necessity  of  marriage,  Luther  does  not 
stop  to  consider  that  the  Church  of  antiquity,  for  all  her 
esteem  for  matrimony,  was  ever  careful  to  see  that  the  duties 
and  interests  of.  the  individual,  of  the  State  and  of  the 
Church  were  respected,  and  not  endangered  by  hasty 
marriages.  Luther  himself  was  not  hampered  by  considera- 
tions of  that  sort,  whether  in  the  case  of  priests,  monks  or 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  16,  p.  511  ;  cp.  p.  512. 

2  For  other  passages  in  which  Luther  inculcates  either  chastity  or 
faithfulness  in  the  married  state,  see,  for  instance,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed., 
10,  2,  pp.  298,  302  ;  Erl.  ed.,  162,  pp.  132  f.,  137,  and  "  Colloq.,"  ed. 
Rebenstock,  2,  p.  95  ;  "  Deus  omnipotens  .  .  .  castus,  etc.,  castitatem 
diligit,  pudicitiam  et  verecundiam  ornat"  etc. 


246         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

laymen.  The  unmarried  state  revolted  him  to  such  a  degree, 
that  he  declares  nothing  offended  his  "  ears  more  than  the 
words  nun,  monk  and  priest,"  and  that  he  looked  on  mar- 
riage as  "  a  Paradise,  even  though  the  married  pair  lived  in 
abject  poverty."1  A  couple,  who  on  account  of  their  cir- 
cumstances should  hesitate  to  marry,  he  reproaches  with  a 
"  pitiful  want  of  faith."  "  A  boy  not  later  than  the  age  of 
twenty,  and  a  girl  when  she  is  from  fifteen  to  eighteen 
years  of  age  [ought  to  marry].  Then  they  are  still  healthy 
and  sound,  and  they  can  leave  it  to  God  to  see  that  their 
children  are  provided  for."2 

If  we  are  to  take  him  at  his  word,  then  a  cleric  ought  to 
marry  merely  to  defy  the  Pope.  "  For,  even  though  he  may 
have  the  gift  so  as  to  be  able  to  live  chastely  without  a  wife, 
yet  he  ought  to  marry  in  defiance  of  the  Pope,  who  insists 
so  much  on  celibacy."3 

The  "  Miracle  "  of  Voluntary  and  Chaste  Celibacy, 

Of  the  celibate  and  continent  life  Luther  had  declared 
(above,  p.  242-3)  that  practically  only  a  miracle  could  render 
it  possible.4  If  we  compare  his  statements  on  virginity,  we 
shall  readily  see  how  different  elements  were  warring  within 
him.  On  the  one  hand  he  is  anxious  to  uphold  the  plain 
words  of  Scripture,  which  place  voluntary  virginity  above 
marriage.  On  the  other,  his  conception  of  the  great  and, 
without  grace,  irresistible  power  of  concupiscence  draws 
him  in  the  opposite  direction.  Moreover,  man,  being  devoid 
of  free  will,  and  incapable  of  choosing  of  his  own  accord  the 
higher  path,  in  order  not  to  fall  a  prey  to  his  lusts,  must 
resolutely  embrace  the  married  state  intended  by  God 
for  the  generality  of  men.  Then,  again,  we  must  not  discount 
the  change  his  views  underwent  after  his  marriage  with 
a  nun. 

In  view  of  the  "  malady  "  of  "  the  common  flesh,"  he 
says  of  the  man  who  pledges  himself  to  voluntary  chastity, 
that  "  on  account  of  this  malady,  marriage  is  necessary  to 

1  To  Nicholas  Gerbel,  Nov.  1,  1521,  "  Brief wechsel,"  3,  p.  241, 
from  the  Wartburg.  Ibid. :  "  Devotis  religiosorum  et  sacerdotum  Philippo 
et  mihi  est  robusta  conspiratio,  tollendis  et  evacuandis  videlicet.  0 
sceleratum  ilium  Antichristum  cum  squamis  suis  !  " 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  303  f.  ;  Erl.  ed.,  162,  p.  139. 

3  Erl.  ed.,  61,  p.  167. 

4  See  vol.  ii.,  p.  115  ff.,  and  vol.  iv.,  xxii.  5. 


ON  CHASTITY  247 

him  and  it  is  not  in  his  power  to  do  without  it ;  for  his  flesh 
rages,  burns  and  tends  to  be  fruitful  as  much  as  that  of  any 
other  man,  and  he  must  have  recourse  to  marriage  as  the 
necessary  remedy.  Such  passion  of  the  flesh  God  permits 
for  the  sake  of  marriage  and  for  that  of  the  progeny."1 — 
And  yet,  according  to  another  passage  in  Luther's  writings, 
even  marriage  is  no  remedy  for  concupiscence  :  "  Sensual 
passion  ('  libido  ')  cannot  be  cured  by  any  remedy,  not  even 
marriage,  which  God  has  provided  as  a  medicine  for  weak 
nature.  For  the  majority  of  married  people  are  adulterers, 
and  each  says  to  the  other  in  the  words  of  the  poet  :  *  Neither 
with  nor  without  you  can  I  live.'  "2  "  Experience  teaches 
us,  that,  in  the  case  of  many,  even  marriage  is  not  a  sufficient 
remedy  ;  otherwise  there  would  be  no  adultery  or  fornica- 
tion, whereas,  alas,  they  are  only  too  frequent."3 

It  is  merely  a  seeming  contradiction  to  his  words  on  the 
miraculous  nature  of  virginity  when  Luther  says  on  one 
occasion  :  "  Many  are  to  be  met  with  who  have  this  gift ; 
I  also  had  it,  though  with  many  evil  thoughts  and  dreams,"4 
for  possibly,  owing  to  his  reference  to  himself,  modesty  led 
him  here  to  represent  this  rare  and  miraculous  gift  as  less 
unusual.  Here  he  speaks  of  "  many,"  but  usually  of  the 
"  few."  "  We  find  so  few  who  possess  God's  gift  of 
chastity."5  "They  are  rare,"  he  says  in  his  sermon  on 
conjugal  life,  "  and  among  a  thousand  there  is  scarcely  one 
to  be  found,  for  they  are  God's  own  wonder-works  ;  no  man 
may  venture  to  aspire  to  this  unless  God  calls  him  in  a 
special  manner."6 

Luther  acknowledges  that  those  in  whom  God  works  this 
"  miracle " — who,  while  remaining  unmarried,  do  not 
succumb  to  the  deadly  assaults  of  concupiscence — were  to 
be  esteemed  fortunate  on  account  of  the  happiness  of  the 
celibate  state.  It  would  be  mere  one-sidedness  to  dwell 
solely  Upon  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  necessity  and  worth 
of  marriage  and  not  to  consider  the  numerous  passages  in 
which  he  speaks  in  praise  of  voluntary  and  chaste  celibacy. 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  12,  p.  114;  Erl.  ed.,  51,  p.  30.  "  1  Cor.  vii.," 
1523. 

2  "  Opp.  lat.  exeg.,"  1,  p.  212.  "  Enarr.  in  Genesim,"  c.  3  ;  "  Maior 
enim  pars  conjugatorum  vivit  in  adulter  Us,''''  etc. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  302  seq.,  in  c.  4. 

4  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  44,  p.  148.     Sermon  on  Matthew  xviii.  ff. 

5  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  12,  p.  115;  Erl.  ed.,  51,  p.  32.  "  1  Cor.  vii.," 
etc.  6  Ibid.,  10,  2,  p.  279  =  162,  p.  113.     Sermon  on  Married  Life. 


248        LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

He  says  in  the  sermon  on  conjugal  life  :  "  No  state  of  life  is 
to  be  regarded  as  more  pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God  than  the 
married  state.  The  state  of  chastity  is  certainly  better  on  earth 
as  having  less  of  care  and  trouble,  not  in  itself,  but  because  a 
man  can  give  himself  to  preaching  and  the  Word  of  God  [1  Cor. 
vii.  34].  ...  In  itself  it  is  far  less  exalted."1  In  the  following 
year,  1523,  in  his  exposition  of  1  Corinthians,  chapter  vii.,  St. 
Paul's  declaration  leads  him  to  extol  virginity  :  "  Whoever  has 
grace  to  remain  chaste,  let  him  do  so  and  abstain  from  marriage 
and  not  take  upon  himself  such  trouble  unless  need  enforce  it,  as 
St.  Paul  here  counsels  truly  ;  for  it  is  a  great  and  noble  freedom 
to  be  unmarried  and  saves  one  from  much  disquietude,  vexation 
and  trouble."2  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say  :  "  It  is  a  sweet, 
joyous  and  splendid  gift,  for  him  to  whom  it  is  given,  to  be  chaste 
cheerfully  and  willingly,"3  and  for  this  reason  in  particular  "  is  it 
a  fine  thing,"  because  it  enables  us  the  better  to  serve  the 
"  Christian  Churches,  the  Evangel  and  the  preaching  of  the 
Word  "  ;  this  is  the  case  "  when  you  refrain  from  taking  a  wife 
so  as  to  be  at  peace  and  to  be  of  service  to  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven."  The  preacher,  he  explains,  for  instance,  was  not 
expected  to  ply  a  trade,  for  which  reason  also  he  received  a 
stipend  for  preaching.  "  Hence,  whoever  wishes  to  serve  the 
Churches  and  to  enjoy  greater  quiet,  would  do  well  to  remain 
without  a  wife,  for  then  he  would  have  neither  wife  nor  child  to 
support."4  "  Whoever  has  the  gift  of  being  able  to  live  without 
a  wife,  is  an  angel  on  earth  and  leads  a  peaceful  life."5 

In  this  way  Luther  comes  practically  to  excuse,  nay,  even  to 
eulogise,  clerical  celibacy  ;  elsewhere  we  again  find  similar  ideas 
put  forward. 

In  his  Latin  exposition  of  Psalm  cxxviii.  he  says  :  "  There 
must  be  freedom  either  to  remain  single  or  to  marry.  Who  would 
force  the  man  who  has  no  need  to  marry  to  do  so  ?  Whoever  is 
among  those  who  are  able  '  to  receive  this  word,'  let  him  remain 
unmarried  and  glory  in  the  Lord.  .  .  .  They  who  can  do  without 
marrying  do  well  (recte  faciunt)  to  abstain  from  it  and  not  to 
burden  themselves  with  the  troubles  it  brings."6  And  again  : 
"  Whoever  is  set  free  by  such  a  grace  [a  '  special  and  exalted 
grace  of  God  '],  let  him  thank  God  and  obey  it."7  For  "  if  we 
contrast  the  married  state  with  virginity,  chastity  is  undoubtedly 
a  nobler  gift  than  marriage,  but,  still,  marriage  is  as  much  God's 
gift — so  St.  Paul  tells  us — as  chastity."8     Compared  with  the 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  p.  302-137. 

2  Ibid.,  12,  p.  137  =  51,  p.  63  f. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  99  =  10. 

4  Ibid.,  Erl.  ed.,  44,  p.  151  f.    Sermon  on  Matthew  xviii.  ff. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  153,  where  he  tells  a  tale  of  how  St.  Bernard  and  St. 
Francis  made  snow-women,  "  to  lie  beside  them  and  thus  subdue 
their  passion." 

6  "  Opp.  lat.  exeg.."  20,  p.  126  seq. 

7  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  24,  p.  55  ;  Erl.  ed.,  33,  p.  59.  Sermons  on 
Genesis,  1527. 

8  Ibid.,  12,  p.  104  =  51,  p.  16  f.     "  1  Corinthians,  vii.,"  etc. 


ON   CHASTITY  249 

chastity  of  marriage,  "virgin  chastity  is  more  excellent  (vir- 
ginalis  castitas  excellentior  est)."1  "Celibacy  is  a  gift  of  God 
and  we  commend  both  this  and  the  married  state  in  their  measure 
and  order.  We  do  not  extol  marriage  as  though  we  should  slight 
or  repudiate  celibacy."2 

Usually  Luther  represents  virginity  as  not  indeed  superior 
but  quite  equal  to  the  married  state  :  "  To  be  a  virgin  or  a 
spouse  is  a  different  gift  ;  both  are  equally  well  pleasing  to  God."  3 
As  we  might  expect,  we  find  the  warmest  appreciation  of  celibacy 
expressed  before  Luther  himself  began  to  think  of  marriage, 
whereas,  subsequent  to  1525,  his  strictures  on  celibacy  become 
more  frequent.  In  1518,  without  any  restriction,  he  has  it 
that  virginity  is  held  to  be  the  highest  ornament  and  "  an 
incomparable  jewel  "  ;  in  the  case  of  religious,  chastity  was  all 
the  more  precious  because  "  they  had  of  their  own  free  will  given 
themselves  to  the  Lord."4  In  the  following  year,  comparing  the 
married  state  with  virginity,  he  says  that  "  virginity  is  better," 
when  bestowed  by  the  grace  of  God.5 

"  The  breach  with  the  past  caused  by  his  marriage,"  says 
M.  Rade,  was  "  greater  and  more  serious  "  than  any  change 
effected  in  later  years  in  matrimonial  relationship.6  By 
his  advocacy  of  marriage,  as  against  celibacy  and  his  glorifica- 
tion of  family  life,  Luther  brought  about  "  a  reversal  of  all 
accepted  standards."7  Rade,  not  without  sarcasm,  remarks  : 
"  There  is  something  humorous  in  the  way  in  which  Luther 
in  his  exposition  of  1  Corinthians  vii.,  which  we  have 
repeatedly  had  occasion  to  quote,  after  praising  virginity 
ever  passes  on  to  the  praise  of  the  married  state."8  It  is 
quite  true  that  his  interpretation  seems  forced,  when  he 
makes  St.  Paul,  in  this  passage,  extol  continency,  not  on 
account  of  its  "  merit  and  value  in  God's  sight,"  but  merely 
for  the  "  tranquillity  and  comfort  it  insures  in  this  life."9 
To  Luther  it  is  of  much  greater  interest,  that  St.  Paul  should 
be  "  so  outspoken  in  his  praise  of  the  married  state  and 
should  allude  to  it  as  a  Divine  gift."    He  at  once  proceeds 

1  "  Opp.  lat.  exeg.,"  G,  p.  22.     "  Enarr.  in  Genesim,"  c.  24. 

2  Ibid.,  7,  p.  286,  in  c.  30. 

3  Ibid.,  20,  p.  131.     "  Enarr.  in  Ps.  128." 

4  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  488  f.  ;  "  Opp.  lat.  exeg.,"  12,  p.  160 
seqq.     "  Decern  praecepta  praedicata  populo,"  1518. 

5  Ibid.,  2,  p,  168  ;  Erl.  ed.,  162,  p.  62.  Sermon  on  the  conjugal 
state,  1519,  "  altered  and  corrected."  Cp.  also  present  work,  vol.  iv., 
xxii.  5. 

6  "  Die  Stellung  des  Christentums  zum  Geschlechtsleben,"  Tubin- 
gen, 1910,  p.  40. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  53.  8  Ibid.,  p.  49. 
9  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  12,  p.  137  ;  Erl.  ed.,  51,  p.  64. 


250         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

to  prove  from  this,  that  "  the  married  state  is  the  holiest 
state  of  all,  and  that  certain  states  had  been  falsely  termed 
1  religious  '  and  others  '  secular  '  ;  for  the  reverse  ought  to 
be  the  case,  the  married  state  being  truly  religious  and 
spiritual."1 

Luther's  animus  against  celibacy  became  manifest  every- 
where. He  refused  to  give  sufficient  weight  to  the  Bible 
passages,  to  the  self-sacrifice  so  pleasing  to  God  involved 
in  the  unmarried  state,  or  to  its  merits  for  time  and  for 
eternity.  It  is  this  animus  which  leads  him  into  exaggeration 
when  he  speaks  of  the  necessity  of  marriage  for  all  men, 
and  to  utter  words  which  contradict  what  he  himself  had 
said  in  praise  of  celibacy. 

He.  paints  in  truly  revolting  colours  the  moral  abomina- 
tions of  the  Papacy,  exaggerating  in  unmeasured  terms  the 
notorious  disorders  which  had  arisen  from  the  infringement 
of  clerical  celibacy.  His  controversial  writings  contain 
disgusting  and  detailed  descriptions  of  the  crimes  committed 
against  morality  in  the  party  of  his  opponents ;  the 
repulsive  tone  is  only  rivalled  by  his  prejudice  and 
want  of  discrimination  which  lead  him  to  believe  every 
false  report  or  stupid  tale  redounding  to  the  discredit  of 
Catholicism. 

•  His  conception  of  the  rise  of  clerical  celibacy  is  inclined 
to  be  hazy  :  "  The  celibacy  of  the  clergy  commenced  in  the 
time  of  Cyprian."  Elsewhere  he  says  that  it  began  "  in  the 
time  of  Bishop  Ulrich,  not  more  than  five  hundred  years 
ago."2 

He  assures  us  that  "St.  Ambrose  and  others  did  not  believe 
that  they  were  men."3  "  The  infamous  superstition  [of 
celibacy]  gave  rise  to,  and  promoted,  horrible  sins  such  as 
fornication,  adultery,  incest  .  .  .  also  strange  apparitions 
and  visions.  .  .  .  What  else  could  be  expected  of  monks, 
idle  and  over-fed  pigs  as  they  were,  than  that  they  should 
have  such  fancies?  "4 — In  the  Pope's  Ten  Commandments 
there  was,  so  he  said,  a  sixth  which  ran  :    "  Thou  shalt  not 

1  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  12,  p.  104  f.  =  16  ff. 

2  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  3,  p.  291.  For  proofs  that  the  Western 
law  of  continence  goes  back  to  the  early  ages  of  the  Church,  and  was 
spoken  of  even  at  the  Synod  of  Elvira  in  305  or  306,  see  my  "  History 
of  Rome  and  the  Popes  in  the  Middle  Ages  "  (Eng.  Trans.),  hi.,  p.  271  ff. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  61,  p.  298. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  297;    "  Colloq.,"  2,  p.  366  seq. 


THE  PAPISTS'    CHASTITY  251 

be  unchaste,  but  force  them  to  be  so  "  (by  means  of  vows 
and  celibacy),  and  a  ninth  :  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy 
neighbour's  wife,  but  say,  it  is  no  sin."1 

"  Were  all  those  living  under  the  Papacy  kneaded 
together,  not  one  would  be  found  who  had  remained  chaste 
up  to  his  fortieth  year.  Yet  they  talk  much  of  virginity  and 
find  fault  with  all  the  world  while  they  themselves  are  up 
to  their  ears  in  filth."2 — "  It  pleases  me  to  see  the  Saints 
sticking  in  the  mud  just  like  us.  But  it  is  true  that  God 
allows  nature  to  remain,  together  with  the  spirit  and  with 
grace."3 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  8,  p.  553  seq.  ;  Erl  ed.,  28,  p.  128. 

2  Ibid,,  24,  p.  517  =  34,  p.  139  f.,  in  the  Sermons  on  Genesis,  1527. 

3  Ibid.,  518  =  140.  We  may  add  some  further  statements  character- 
istic of  Luther's  unseemly  language  on  the  necessity  of  marriage 
and  the  alleged  abuses  on  the  Catholic  side.  Of  these  passages  the 
first  two  are  for  obvious  reasons  given  in  Latin. 

"  Major  pars  puellarum  in  monasteriis  positdrum  non  potest  voluntarie 
statum  suum  observare.  .  .  .  Puella  non  potest  esse  sine  viro,  sicut  non 
sine  esu,  potu  et  somno.  Ideo  Deus  dedit  homini  membra,  vends,  fluxus  et 
omnia,  quae  ad  generandum  inserviunt.  Qui  his  rebus  obsislit,  quid 
aliud  facit,  quam  velle  ut  ignis  non  urat  ?  .  .  .  Ubi  castitas  involuntaria 
est,  natura  non  desistit  ab  opere  suo  ;  caro  semen  concipit  sicut  creata  est 
a  Deo  ;  venae  secundum  genus  suum  operantur.  Tunc  incipiunt  fluxus 
et  peccata  clandestina,  quae  s.  Paulus  mollitiem  vocat  (1  Cor.  vi.  10). 
Et,  ut  crude  dicam,  propter  miseram  necessitatem,  quod  non  fluit  in 
carnem,  fluit  in  vestimenta.  Id  deinde  accusare  et  conflteri  verentur.  .  . 
Vide,  hoc  ipsum  voluit  diabolus,  docens  te  coercere  et  domare  naturam, 
quae  non  vult  esse  coacta"  ("Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  156  f . ;  Erl. 
ed.,  28,  p.  199). 

He  had  spoken  in  much  the  same  way  in  the  Tract  against  celibacy 
which  preceded  in  1521  his  book  on  Monastic  Vows,  and  which  appeared 
again  in  the  Church  Sermons  and  also  several  times  separately 
("  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  1,  1,  p.  694  ff.;  Erl.  ed.,  102,  p.  448  ff.  ; 
Sermon  on  the  Feast  of  the  Three  Kings,  1522)  :  "  Ubi  magna  et 
coelestis  gratia  non  assistit,  oportet  naturam  secundum  ordinem  suum 
fluxus  pati.  Si  non  conveniunt  vir  et  femina,  natura  tamen  propriam 
viam  sequitur  et  indignatur  ;  ita  ut  melius  sit  masculum  et  feminam  esse 
simul,  sicut  Deus  (eos)  creavit  et  natura  vult.  .  .  .  Interrogo  igitur,  quid 
consilii  dabis  ei,  qui  se  continere  non  potest  ?  Si  dicis,  inhibitione 
utendum,  respondeo,  unum  ex  tribus  seeuturum  esse  :  aut  masculus  et 
femina  sese  conjungent,  ut  placuerit  sicuti  nunc  fit  sub  saccrdolibus  papis- 
tarum,  aut  natura  sponte  sese  solvet,  aut,  deficienle  primo  et  secundo,  sine 
cessatione  homo  uretur  et  clam  patietur.  Hoc  modo  creasti  martyrium  dia- 
bolicum,  et  fiet,  ut  vir  mulieri  deformissimae  sese  sociaret  et  mulier  viro  tae- 
diosissimo  prae  malo  impetu  carnis.  Ignoscant  mihi  aures  pudicae,  debeo 
tractare animimorbos, sicut medicus tractat stercus etlatrinam.  .  .  .  Tufacis, 
ut  ille  pauper  homo  continuo  corde  peccet  contra  votum  suum,  et  melius 
fortasse  sit,  quod  masculus  nonnunquam  secum  habeat  femellam  et  femina 
juvenem.  .  .  .  At  papa  sinit  eos  fluxus  pati,  uri  et  torqueri  sicut  possunt, 
ita  ut  eos  habeam  pro  infantibus  immolatis  a  populo  Israel  idolo  igneo 
Moloch  ad  concremandum.  .  .  .  Non  vis  impedire  tandem  aliquando, 
quominus  fornicentur,  fluxibus  maculentur  et  urantur  ?  "    Ibid.,  p.  108  = 


252         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

Luther's  Loosening  of  the  Marriage  Tie. 

Luther,  advocate  and  promoter  of  marriage  though  he 
was,  himself  did  much  to  undermine  its  foundations,  which 
must  necessarily  rest  on  its  indissolubility  and  sanctity  as 
ordained  by  Christ.  In  the  six  following  cases  which  he 
enumerates  he  professes  to  find  sufficient  grounds  for 
dissolving  the  marriage  tie,  overstepping  in  the  most 
autocratic  fashion  the  limits  of  what  is  lawful  to  the  manifest 
detriment  of  matrimony. 

He  declares,  first,  that  if  one  or  other  of  the  married 
parties  should  be  convicted  of  obstinately  refusing  "  to 
render  the  conjugal  due,  or  to  remain  with  the  other,"  then 
"  the  marriage  was  annulled  "  ;  the  husband  might  then 
say  :  "If  you  are  unwilling,  some  other  will  consent ;  if 
the  wife  refuse,  then  let  the  maid  come  "  ;   he  had  the  full 

462  :  Si  in  singulis  civitatibus  forent  vel  quinque  juvencs  et  quinque 
puellae  viginti  annorum,  integri,  sine  fluxibus  naturae,  tunc  dicerem, 
primitiva  tempora  apostolorum  et  martyrum  rediisse.  Nunc  autem 
qualem  Sodomam  et  Gomorrham  fecit  diabolus  ubicunque  plane  per  istam 
singularem  castitatem  votorum  ! 

In  the  sermon  on  conjugal  life,  in  1522,  he  says  :  "  It  is  true  that  the 
man  who  does  not  marry  is  obliged  to  sin.  How  can  it  be  otherwise, 
seeing  that  God  created  man  and  woman  to  be  fruitful  and  multiply  ? 
But  why  do  we  not  forestall  sin  by  marriage  ?  "  ("  Werke,"  Weim.  ed., 
10,  2,  p.  300  ;  Erl.  ed.,  162,  p.  537).  In  his  latter  years  he  penned  the 
following  attack  upon  the  older  Church  of  which  the  obscenity  vies 
with  its  untruth  :  "  The  chaste  Pope  does  not  take  a  wife,  yet  all 
women  are  his.  The  lily-white,  chaste,  shamefaced,  modest,  Holy 
Father  wears  the  semblance  of  chastity  and  refuses  to  take  a  wife 
honourably  and  in  the  sight  of  God  ;  but  how  many  other  women  he 
keeps,  not  only  prostitutes,  but  married  women  and  virgins,  look  at  his 
Court  of  Cardinals,  his  Bishoprics,  Foundations,  Courtesans,  Convents, 
Clergy,  Chaplains,  Schoolmasters  and  his  whole  curia,  not  to  speak  of 
countless  unnamable  sins.  Well,-  may  God  give  us  His  grace  and 
punish  both  the  Pope  and  Mohammed  with  all  their  devils  !  "  ("  Werke," 
Erl.  ed.,  65,  p.  204,  in  the  Preface  to  the  writing  :  "  Verlegung  des 
Alcoran  Bruder  Richardi,"  1542).  It  is  simply  an  example  of  Luther's 
habitual  misrepresentation  when  we  read  in  one  of  his  sermons  dating 
from  1524  (^"Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  667) :  "Up  to  this  time  marriage 
has  been  a  despised  state,  being  termed  a  state  of  easy  virtue  ;  but 
Scripture  says  :  '  Male  and  female  He  created  them  '  (Gen.  i.  27)  : 
that  is  enough  for  us.  In  practice  we  all  extol  this  state.  Oh,  that  all 
men  lived  in  it  !  Whoever  has  not  been  exempted  by  God,  let  him  see 
that  he  finds  his  like  [a  spouse]."  Upon  himself  he  looked  as  one 
"  exempted  by  God,"  at  least  he  declared  in  several  passages  of  this 
sermon,  delivered  in  the  very  year  of  his  marriage,  that  "  by  the  Grace 
of  God  he  did  not  desire  a  wife  ;  I  have  no  need  of  a  wife,  but  must 
assist  you  in  your  necessity."  He  himself  could  not  yet  make  up  his 
mind  to  carry  out  what  he  urged  so  strongly  upon  others. 


"IF  YOU  WON'T  ANOTHER  WILL"     253 

right  to  take  an  Esther  and  dismiss  Vasthi,  as  King  Assuerus 
had  done  (Esther  ii.  17). 1  To  the  remonstrances  of  his  wife 
he  would  be  justified  in  replying  :  "  Go,  you  prostitute,  go 
to  the  devil  if  you  please  "  ;2  the  injured  party  was  at  liberty 
to  contract  a  fresh  union,  though  only  with  the  sanction  of 
the  authorities  or  of  the  congregation,  while  the  offending 
party  incurred  the  penalty  of  the  law  and  might  or  might 
not  be  permitted  to  marry  again.3 

The  words  :  "  If  you  won't  .  .  .  then  let  the  maid  come  " 
were  destined  to  become  famous.  Not  Catholics  only,  but 
Protestants  too,  found  in  them  a  stone  of  offence.  As  they 
stand  they  give  sufficient  ground  for  scandal.  Was  it,  how- 
ever, Luther's  intention  thereby  to  sanction  relations  with 
the  maid  outside  the  marriage  bond  ?  In  fairness  the 
question  must  be  answered  in  the  negative.  Both  before 
and  after  the  critical  passage  the  text  speaks  merely  of  the 
dissolution  of  the  marriage  and  the  contracting  of  another 
union  ;  apart  from  this,  as  is  clear  from  other  passages, 
Luther  never  sanctioned  sexual  commerce  outside  matri- 
mony. Thus,  strictly  speaking,  according  to  him,  the 
husband  would  only  have  the  right  to  threaten  the  obstinate 
wife  to  put  her  away  and  contract  a  fresh  union  with  the 
maid.  At  the  same  time  the  allusion  to  the  maid  was 
unfortunate,  as  it  naturally  suggested  something  different 
from  marriage.  In  all  probability  it  was  the  writer's 
inveterate  habit  of  clothing  his  thought  in  the  most  drastic 
language  at  his  command  that  here  led  him  astray.  It 
may  be  that  the  sentence  "  Then  let  the  maid  come  " 
belonged  to  a  rude  proverb  which  Luther  used  without 
fully  adverting  to  its  actual  meaning,  but  it  has  yet  to  be 
proved  that  such  a  proverb  existed  before  Luther's  day  ; 
at  any  rate,  examples  can  be  quoted  of  the  words  having 
been  used  subsequently  as  a  proverb,  on  the  strength  of  his 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  290;  Erl.  ed.,  1G2,  p.  526,  in  the 
Sermon  on  conjugal  life,  1522. 

2  Ibid.,  10,  3,  p.  222  =  23,  p.  1 16  f.,  in  the  work  "  On  marriage  matters," 
to  the  pastors  and  preachers,  1530.  Cp.  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  12, 
p.  119. 

3  As  regards  the  authorities,  Luther's  wish  was  that  they  should 
interfere  in  the  matter  from  the  outset,  and  that  strongly,  although  he 
can  scarcely  have  hoped  to  see  this  carried  out  in  practice.  "  The 
authorities  must  either  coerce  the  woman  or  put  her  to  death.  Should 
they  not  do  this,  the  husband  must  imagine  that  his  wife  has  been 
carried  off  by  brigands  and  look  about  him  for  another  "  (ibid.). 


254         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

example.1 — It  was  on  this,  the  first  ground  for  the  dissolu- 
tion of  marriage,  that  Luther  based  his  decision  in  1543, 
when  one  of  the  Professors  turned  preacher  and  his  wife 
refused  to  follow  him  to  his  post  at  Frankfort-on-the-Oder, 
saying  that  "  she  wasn't  going  to  have  a  parson."  Luther 
then  wrote  :  "I  should  at  once  leave  her  and  marry 
another,"  should  she  categorically  refuse  compliance  ;  in 
reality  the  authorities  ought  to  coerce  her,  but  unfortunately 
no  authority  "  with  '  executio  '  existed,  having  power  over 
the  '  minister  ium.'  "2 

Secondly,  according  to  Luther,  the  adultery  of  one  party 
justified  the  other  in  assuming  that  the  "  guilty  party 
was  already  ipso  facto  divorced  "  ;  "he  can  then  act  as 
though  his  spouse  had  died,"  i.e.  marry  again,  though 
Christian  considerations  intimate  that  he  should  wait  at 
least  six  months.3 

Thirdly,  if  one  party  "  will  not  suffer  the  other  to  live  in 
a  Christian  manner,"  then  the  other,  finding  a  separation 
from  bed  and  board  of  no  avail,  has  the  right  to  "  make  a 
change,"  i.e.  to  contract  another  union.  "  But  how,"  he 
asks,  if  this  new  spouse  should  turn  out  ill  and  try  to  force 
the  other  to  live  like  a  heathen,  or  in  an  unchristian 
manner,  or  should  even  run  away;  what  then,  supposing 
this  thing  went  on  three,  four  or  even  ten  times  ?  "  Luther's 
answer  to  the  conundrum  is  the  same  as  before  :  "  We 
cannot  gag  St.  Paul,  and  therefore  we  cannot  prevent  those 
who  desire  to  do  so  from  making  use  of  the  freedom  he 
allows."  Luther's  conviction  was  that  the  well-known 
passage  in  1  Corinthians  vii.  15  sanctioned  this  dangerous 
doctrine.4 

Fourthly,  if  subsequent  to  the  marriage  contract  one 
party  should  prove  to  be  physically  unfit  for  matrimony, 
then,  according  to  Luther,  the  marriage  might  be  regarded 

1  How  the  expression  was  at  once  taken  up  among  Luther's  oppo- 
nents is  plain  from  a  letter  of  Duke  George  of  Saxony  to  his  representa- 
tive at  the  Diet,  Dietrich  von  Werthern,  in  F.  Gess,  "  Akten  und 
Brief e  Georgs,"  etc.,  1,  p.  415.  Cp.  Weim  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  290  n.,  and 
vol.  iv.,  xxii.  5. 

2  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  ed.  Kroker,  p.  323  f. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  289 ;  Erl.  ed.,  1G2,  p.  525  f.  Sermon 
on  conjugal  life. 

4  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  12,  p.  123  ;  Erl.  ed.,  51,  p.  44  n.,  in  the 
work  "  Das  sieb~dt  Capitel  S.  Pauli  zu  den  Corinthern  aussgelegt," 
1523. 


GROUNDS   FOR  DIVORCE  255 

as  dissolved  without  any  ecclesiastical  suit  solely  by  "  con- 
science and  experience."  He  would  in  that  case  advise,  he 
says,  that  the  woman,  with  the  consent  of  the  man,  should 
enter  into  carnal  relations  with  someone  else,  for  instance, 
with  her  partner's  brother,  for  her  husband  would  really  be 
no  husband  at  all,  but  merely  a  sort  of  bachelor  life-partner  ; 
this  marriage  might,  however,  be  kept  secret  and  the 
children  be  regarded  as  those  of  the  putative  father.1  Even 
where  it  was  not  a  question  of  impotence  but  of  leprosy 
Luther  decided  in  much  the  same  way,  without  a  word  of 
reference  to  any  ecclesiastical  or  legal  suit  :  should  the 
healthy  party  "  be  unable  or  unwilling  to  provide  for  the 
household  "  without  a  fresh  marriage,  and  should  the  sick 
party  "  consent  willingly  to  a  separation,"  then  the  latter 
was  simply  to  be  looked  upon  as  dead,  the  other  party  being 
free  to  re-marry."2 

To  these  grounds  of  separation  Luther,  however,  added 
a  fifth.  He  declared,  on  the  strength  of  certain  biblical 
passages,  that  marriage  with  the  widow  of  a  brother — for 
which,  on  showing  sufficient  grounds,  it  was  possible  to 
obtain  a  dispensation  in  the  Catholic  Church — was  invalid 
under  all  circumstances,  and  that  therefore  any  person 
married  on  the  strength  of  such  a  dispensation  might 
conclude  a  fresh  union.  At  first,  in  1531,  such  was  not  his 
opinion,  and  he  declared  quite  valid  the  marriage  of  Henry 
VIII.  with  his  sister-in-law  Catherine  of  Aragon,  which 
was  the  outcome  of  such  a  dispensation  ;  later  on,  however, 
in  1536,  on  ostensibly  biblical  grounds  he  discarded  the 
Catholic  view.3 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  278  ;  Erl.  ed.,  1G2,  p.  515.  She 
was  to  say  :  "  Permit  me  to  enter  into  a  secret  marriage  with  your 
brother,  or  your  best  friend,"  etc.  Luther  is  speaking  of  the  case 
"  where  a  healthy  woman  had  an  impotent  husband,"  etc.  He  here 
refers  to  the  similar  answer  he  had  already  given  in  his  work  :  "  On  the 
Babylonish  Captivity  "  ("  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  558  ;  "  Opp. 
lat.  var.,"  5,  p.  98  seq. 

2  To  Joachim  von  Weissbach,  August  23,  1527,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed., 
53,  p.  406  f.  ("  Brief wechsel,"  0,  p.  80).  In  1540  he  says  :  "  Ego 
concessi  privatim  aliquot  coniugibus,  qui  leprosum  vel  leprosam  haberent, 
ut  alium  duce.rent.''''  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  141.  In  a  sermon  of 
1524  he  says  coarsely  of  an  impotent  wife  :  "I  would  not  have  such  a 
one  beside  me  "  ("  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  560).  The  marriage  bond 
was  also  dissolved  where  husband  or  wife  had  become  impotent  "  owing 
to  an  evil  spell  "  ;  his  convictions  forced  him  to  teach  this  (ibid., 
p.  562). 

■  Letter  of  February  16,  1542,  "  Briefe,"  5,  p.  436  ;  cp.  ibid.,  p.  584. 
The  question  was  thoroughly  gone  into  by  Rockwell,  "  Die  Doppelehe 


256         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

His  views,  not  here  alone  but  elsewhere,  on  matri- 
monial questions,  were  founded  on  an  altogether  peculiar 
interpretation  of  Scripture ;  he  sought  in  Scripture  for 
the  proofs  he  wished  to  find,  interpreting  the  Sacred 
Text  in  utter  disregard  of  the  teaching  of  its  best  authorised 
exponents  and  the  traditions  of  the  Church.  The  conse- 
quences of  such  arbitrary  exegetical  study  he  himself 
described  characteristically  enough.  Speaking  of  Carlstadt, 
who,  like  him,  was  disposed  to  lay  great  stress  on  Old- 
Testament  examples  and  referring  to  one  of  his  matri- 
monial decisions  which  he  was  not  disposed  to  accept, 
Luther  exclaims  :  "  Let  him  [Carlstadt]  do  as  he  pleases  ; 
soon  we  shall  have  him  introducing  circumcision  at  Orla- 
mtinde  and  making  Mosaists  of  them  all."1 

Yet  he  was  perfectly  aware  of  the  danger  of  thus  loosening 
the  marriage  tie.  He  feared  that  fresh  grounds  for  severing 
the  same  would  be  invented  day  by  day. 2  On  one  occasion 
he  exclaims,  as  though  to  stifle  his  rising  scruples,  that  it 
was  clear  that  all  God  cares  for  is  "  faith  and  confession.  .  .  . 
It  does  not  matter  to  Him  whether  you  dismiss  j^our  wife 
and  break  your  word.  For  what  is  it  to  Him  whether  j^ou 
do  so  or  not  ?  But  because  you  owe  a  duty  to  your  neigh- 
bour," for  this  reason  only,  i.e.  on  account  of  the  rights  of 
others,  it  is  wrong.3  These  strange  words,  which  have  often 
been  misunderstood  and  quoted  against  Luther  by  polemics, 
were  naturally  not  intended  to  question  the  existence  of  the 
marriage  tie,  but  they  are  dangerous  in  so  far  as  they  do  not 
make  sufficient  account  of  the  nature  of  the  commandment 
and  the  sin  of  its  breach. 

Most  momentous  of  all,  however,  was  the  sixth  plea  in 
favour  of  divorce,  an  extension  of  those  already  mentioned. 
Not  merely  the  apostasy  of  one  party  or  his  refusal  to  live 
with  the  Christian  party,  justified  the  other  to  contract  a 
fresh  union,  but  even  should  he  separate,  or  go  off,  "  for 

Philipps  von  Hessen,"  1904,  p.  202  ff.,  who  says  :  "  About  1536  a 
change  took  place  in  the  attitude  of  the  Wittenbergers  towards  marriage 
with  relatives-in-law  "  (p.  216).  "  Thus  it  is  evident  that  Luther's 
views  underwent  a  change  "  (p.  217).  For  the  answer  to  the  question 
how  far  this  change  was  due  to  the  hope  of  winning  over  Henry  VIII. 
to  the  New  Evangel,  see  vol.  iv.,  xxi.  1. 

1  To  Chancellor  Bruck,  January  27,  1524,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  4,  p.  283. 

2  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  2,  p.  380  seq. 

3  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  12,  p.  131;  Erl.  ed.,  51,  p.  55.  "Das 
siebedt  Capitel." 


GROUNDS   FOR  DIVORCE  257 

any  reason  whatever,  for  instance,  through  anger  or  dislike." 
Should  "  husband  or  wife  desert  the  other  in  this  way,  then 
Paul's  teaching  [!]  was  to  be  extended  so  far  .  .  .  that  the 
guilty  party  be  given  the  alternative  either  to  be  reconciled 
or  to  lose  his  spouse,  the  innocent  party  being  now  free 
and  at  liberty  to  marry  again  in  the  event  of  a  refusal. 
It  is  unchristian  and  heathenish  for  one  party  to  desert  the 
other  out  of  anger  or  dislike,  and  not  to  be  ready  patiently 
to  bear  good  and  ill,  bitter  and  sweet  with  his  spouse,  as  his 
duty  is,  hence  such  a  one  is  in  reality  a  heathen  and  no 
Christian."1 

Thus  did  Luther  write,  probably  little  dreaming  of  the 
incalculable. confusion  he  was  provoking  in  the  social  con- 
ditions of  Christendom  by  such  lax  utterances.  Yet  he  was 
perfectly  acquainted  with  the  laws  to  the  contrary.  He  de- 
claims against  "the  iniquitous  legislation  of  the  Pope,  who, 
in  direct  contravention  of  this  text  of  St.  Paul's  (1  Cor.  vii. 
15),  commands  and  compels  such  a  one,  under  pain  of  the 
loss  of  his  soul,  not  to  re-marry,  but  to  await  either  the 
return  of  the  deserter  or  his  death,"  thus  "  needlessly  driving 
the  innocent  party  into  the  danger  of  unchastity."  He  also 
faces,  quite  unconcernedly,  the  difficulty  which  might  arise 
should  the  deserter  change  his  mind  and  turn  up  again 
after  his  spouse  had  contracted  a  new  marriage.  He  is 
simply  to  be  disregarded  and  discarded  .  .  .  and  serve  him 
right  for  his  desertion.  As  matters  now  are  the  Pope  simply 
leaves  the  door  open  for  runaways."2 

The  new  matrimonial  legislator  refuses  to  see  that  he  is 
paving  the  way  for  the  complete  rupture  of  the  marriage  tie. 
If  the  mere  fact  of  one  party  proving  disinclined  to  continue 
in  the  matrimonial  state  and  betaking  himself  elsewhere  is 
sufficient  to  dissolve  a  marriage,  then  every  barrier  falls, 
and,  to  use  Luther's  own  words  of  the  Pope  a  little 
further,  "it  is  no  wonder  that  the  world  is  rilled  with 
broken  pledges  and  forsaken  spouses,  nay,  with  adultery 
which  is  just  what  the  devil  is  aiming  at  by  [such  a] 
law."3 

On  the  other  hand,  Luther,  in  his  reforms,  attacks  those 
matrimonial  impediments  which,  from  the  earliest  Christian 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  12,  p.  124  f.  ;  Erl.  ed.,  51,  p.  45  f.  "  Das 
siebedt  Capitel." 

2  Ibid.,  p.  124  =  44  f.  3  Ibid.,  p.  124-45. 

III.— S 


258         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

times,  had  always  been  held  to  invalidate  marriages.  The 
marriage  of  a  Christian  with  a  heathen  or  a  Jew  he  thinks 
perfectly  valid,  though,  as  was  to  be  expected,  he  does  not 
regard  it  with  a  friendly  eye.  We  are  not  to  trouble  at  all 
about  the  Pope's  pronouncements  concerning  invalidity  : 
44  Just  as  I  may  eat  and  drink,  sleep  and  walk,  write  and 
treat,  talk  and  work  with  a  pagan  or  a  Jew,  a  Turk  or  a 
heretic,  so  also  can  I  contract  a  marriage  with  him.  There- 
fore pay  no  heed  to  the  fool-laws  forbidding  this."  "  A 
heathen  is  just  as  much  a  man  or  woman  as  St.  Peter, 
St.  Paul  or  St.  Lucy."1 

M.  Rade,  the  Protestant  theologian  quoted  above,  con- 
siders that  on  the  question  of  divorce  Luther  took  up  "  quite 
a  different  attitude,"  and  "  opened  up  new  prospects  "  alto- 
gether at  variance  with  those  of  the  past.2  By  his  means  was 
brought  about  a  "  complete  reversal  of  public  opinion  on 
the  externals  of  sexual  life  "  ;  in  this  connection  to  speak 
of  original  sin  was  in  reality  mere  "  inward  contradiction." 
Such  were,  according  to  him,  the  results  of  the  "  Christian 
freedom  "  proclaimed  by  Luther.3 

August  Bebel,  in  his  book  "  Die  Frau  und  der  Sozialismus," 
says  of  Luther  :  "  He  put  forward,  regarding  matrimony, 
views  of  the  most  radical  character."4  44  In  advocating 
liberty  with  regard  to  marriage,  what  he  had  in  mind  was 
the  civil  marriage  such  as  modern  German  legislation 
sanctions,  together  with  freedom  to  trade  and  to  move  from 
place  to  place."5  44  In  the  struggle  which  it  now  wages  with 
clericalism  social  democracy  has  the  fullest  right  to  appeal 
to  Luther,  whose  position  in  matrimonial  matters  was 
entirely  unprejudiced.  Luther  and  the  reformers  even 
went  further  in  the  marriage  question,  out  of  purely  utili- 
tarian motives  and  from  a  desire  to  please  the  rulers  con- 
cerned, whose  powerful  support  and  lasting  favour  they 
were  desirous  of  securing  and  retaining.  Landgrave  Philip  I. 
of  Hesse,  who  was  well  disposed  towards  the  reformation," 
etc.  etc.6 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  162,  p.  519. 

2  Op.  cit.,  above,  p.  249,  n.  6. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  51. 

4  "Die  Frau  und  der  Sozialismus,"19  Stuttgart,  1893,  p.  61. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  64. 

6  Ibid.   p.  61.    On  Philip  of  Hesse,  see  vol.  iv.,  xxi.  2. 


PATRIARCHAL  MORALITY  259 

Polygamy. 

Sanctity  of  marriage  in  the  Christian  mind  involves 
monogamy.  The  very  word  polygamy  implies  a  reproach. 
Luther's  own  feelings  at  the  commencement  revolted 
against  the  conclusions  which,  as  early  as  1520,  he  had  felt 
tempted  to  draw  from  the  Bible  against  monogamy,  for 
instance,  from  the  example  of  the  Old  Testament  Patriarchs, 
such  as  Abraham,  whom  Luther  speaks  of  as  "a  true, 
indeed  a  perfect  Christian."1  It  was  not  long,  however, 
before  he  began  to  incline  to  the  view  that  the  example  of 
Abraham  and  the  Patriarchs  did,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  make 
polygamy  permissible  to  Christians. 

In  September,  1523,  in  his  exposition  on  Genesis  xvi.,  he 
said  without  the  slightest  hesitation  :  "  We  must  take  his 
life  [Abraham's]  as  an  example  to  be  followed,  provided  it 
be  carried  out  in  the  like  faith  "  ;  of  course,  it  was  possible 
to  object,  that  this  permission  of  having  several  wives  had 
been  abrogated  by  the  Gospel ;  but  circumcision  and  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Paschal  Lamb  had  also  been  abrogated,  and 
yet  they  "  are  not  sins,  but  quite  optional,  i.e.  neither  sinful 
nor  praiseworthy.  .  .  .  The  same  must  hold  good  of  other 
examples  of  the  Patriarchs,  namely,  if  they  had  many 
wives,  viz.  that  this  also  is  optional."2 

In  1523  he  advanced  the  following  :  "A  man  is  not 
absolutely  forbidden  to  have  more  than  one  wife  ;  I  could 
not  prevent  it,  but  certainly  I  should  not  counsel  it."  He 
continues  in  this  passage  :  "  Yet  I  would  not  raise  the 
question  but  only  say,  that,  should  it  come  before  the 
sheriff,  it  would  be  right  to  answer  that  we  do  not  reject  the 
example  of  the  Patriarchs,  as  though  they  were  not  right  in 
doing  what  they  did,  as  the  Manicheans  say."3 

The  sermons  where  these  words  occur  were  published  at 
Wittenberg  in  1527  and  at  once  scattered  broadcast  in 
several  editions.  We  shall  have  to  tell  later  how  the  Land- 
grave Philip  of  Hesse  expressly  cited  on  his  own  behalf 
the  passage  we  have  quoted. 

Meanwhile,  however,  i.e.  previous  to  the  printing  of  his 
sermons  on  Genesis,  Luther  had  declared,  in  a  memorandum 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  559  ;  "  Op.  lat.  var.,"  6,  p.  100,  "  De 
captivitate  babylonica,"  1520,  "  an  liceat,  non  audeo  definire." 

2  Ibid.,  24,  p.  304  ;   Erl.  ed.,  33,  p.  323.     Sermons  on  Genesis. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  305  =  324  ;   on  the  date  see  Weim.  ed.,  14,  p.  250  ff.   ' 


260         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

of  January  27,  1524,  addressed  to  Brlick,  the  electoral 
Chancellor,  regarding  a  case  in  point,  viz.  that  of  an  Orla- 
miinde  man  who  wished  to  have  two  wives,  that  he  was 
"  unable  to  forbid  it  "  ;  it  "  was  not  contrary  to  Holy 
Scripture  "  ;  yet,  on  account  of  the  scandal  and  for  the 
sake  of  decorum,  which  at  times  demanded  the  omission 
even  of  what  was  lawful,  he  was  anxious  not  to  be  the  first 
to  introduce  amongst  Christians  "  such  an  example,  which 
was  not  at  all  becoming  "  ;  should,  however,  the  man,  with 
the  assistance  of  spiritual  advisers,  be  able  to  form  a  "  firm 
conscience  by  means  of  the  Word,"  then  the  "  matter  might 
well  be  left  to  take  its  course."1  This  memorandum,  too, 
also  came  to  the  knowledge  of  Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse.2 

Subsequently  Luther  remained  faithful  to  the  standpoint 
that  polygamy  was  not  forbidden  but  optional ;  this  is 
proved  by  his  Latin  Theses  of  1528,3  by  his  letter,  on 
September  3,  1531, 4  addressed  to  Robert  Barnes  for  Henry 
VIII.  and  in  particular  by  his  famous  declaration  of  1539 
to  Philip  of  Hesse,  sanctioning  his  bigamy. 

His  defenders  have  taken  an  unfinished  treatise  which  he 
commenced  in  the  spring  of  15425  as  indicating,  if  not  a 
retractation,  at  least  a  certain  hesitation  on  his  part ;  yet 
even  here  he  shows  no  sign  of  embracing  the  opposite  view  ; 
in  principle  he  held  fast  to  polygamy  and  merely  restricts  it 
to  the  domain  of  conscience.  The  explanation  of  the  writing 
must  be  sought  for  in  the  difficulties  arising  out  of  the  bigamy 
of  Landgrave  Philip.  Owing  to  Philip's  representations 
Luther  left  the  treatise  unfinished,  but  on  this  occasion  he 
expressly  admitted  to  the  Prince,  that  there  were  "  four 
good  reasons  "  to  justify  his  bigamy.6 

Needless  to  say,  views  such  as  these  brought  Luther  into 
conflict  with  the  whole  of  the  past. 

Augustine,  like  the  other  Fathers,  had  declared  that 
polygamy  was  "  expressly  forbidden  "  in  the  New  Testa- 

1  "  Brief wechsel,"  4,  p.  283  :  "  Viro  qui  secundam  uxorem  consilio 
Carlstadii  petit" 

2  The  Elector  forwarded  it  together  with  a  letter  to  Philip  of  Hesse 
on  July  3,  1540.    See  Enders,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  ibid.,  No.  5. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  26,  p.  523  ;  "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  4,  p.  368, 
in  the  "  Propositiones  de  digamia  episcoporum." 

4  "  Brief  wechsel,"  9,  p.  92  ff. 

5  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  65,  p.  206  ff. 

6  Thus  Landgrave  Philip,  on  May  16,  1542,  to  his  theologian  Bucer 
(Lenz,  "  Philipps  Brief  wechsel,"  2,  p.  82), 


THE  SCHOOLMEN  ON  POLYGAMY  261 

ment  as  a  "  crime  "  ("  crimen  "J.1  Peter  Lombard,  Thomas 
Aquinas  and  Bonaventure  speak  in  similar  terms  in  the 
name  of  the  scholasticism  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Peter 
Paludanus,  the  so-called  "  Doctor  egregius "  (f  1342), 
repeated  in  his  work  on  the  Sentences,  that :  "  Under  the 
Gospel-dispensation  it  never  had  been  and  never  would  be 
permitted."2 

It  is,  however,  objected  that  Cardinal  Cajetan,  the  famous 
theologian  and  a  contemporary  of  Luther,  had  described 
polygamy  as  allowable  in  principle,  and  that  Luther  merely 
followed  in  his  footsteps/  But  Cajetan  does  not  deny  that 
the  prohibition  pronounced  by  the  Church  stands,  he  merely 
deals  in  scholastic  fashion  with  the  questions  whether 
polygamy  is  a  contravention  of  the  natural  law,  and  whether 
it  is  expressly  interdicted  in  Holy  Scripture.  True  enough, 
however,  he  answers  both  questions  in  the  negative.3  In 
the  first  everything  of  course  depends  on  the  view  taken  with 
regard  to  the  patriarchs  and  the  Old  Testament  exceptions  ; 
the  grounds  for  these  exceptions  (for  such  they  undoubtedly 
were)  have  been  variously  stated  by  theologians.  In  the 
second,  i.e.  in  the  matter  of  Holy  Scripture,  Cajetan  erred. 
His  views  on  this  subject  have  never  been  copied  and, 
indeed,  a  protest  was  at  once  raised  by  Catharinus,  who 
appealed  to  the  whole  body  of  theologians  as  teaching  that, 
particularly  since  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  there  was  no 
doubt  as  to  the  biblical  prohibition.4 

Thus,  in  spite  of  what  some  Protestants  have  said,  it  was 
not  by  keeping  too  close  to  the  mediaeval  doctrine  of  matri- 
mony, that  Luther  reached  his  theory  of  polygamy. 

It  is  more  likely  that  he  arrived  at  it  owing  to  his  own 

1  "  De  bono  coniugali,"  c.  15  ;  "  P.L.,"  40,  col.  385  :  "  nunc  certe 
non  licet."  "  Contra  Faustum,"  1.  22,  c.  47  ;  "  P.L.,"  42,  col.  428  : 
"  nunc  crimen  est." 

2  "  In  IV.  Sent.,"  Dist,  33,  q.  1,  a.  1. 

3  "  Commentarii  in  Pentateuchum,"  Romae,  1531,  f.  38';  "  Com- 
mentarii  in  Evangelia,"  Venet.,  1530,  f.  77;  "  Epistolae  s.  Pauli 
enarr.,"  etc.,  Venet.  1531,  f.  142. 

4  Ambr.  Catharinus,  "  Annotationes  in  Comment.  Cajetani,"  Lugd., 
1542,  p.  469,  "  In  hoc  prorsus  omnes  theologi,  neminem  excipio,  con- 
senseritnt."  Cp.  Paulus,  "  Luther  raid  die  Polygamie  "  ("  Lit.  Beilage 
der  Koln.  Volksztng.,"  1903,  No.  18),  and  in  "  Cajetan  und  Luther  iiber 
Polygamie"  (Hist.-pol.  Blatter,  135,  1905,  p.  81  ff.).  On  the  opinions 
in  vOgue  regarding  the  Old  Testament  exceptions,  see  Hurter,  "  Theol. 
spec.,"11  P.  ii.,  1903,  p.  567,  n.  605.  Cp.  Rockwell,  "Die  Doppelehe 
Philipps  von  Hessen,"  p.  236  ff. 


262         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

arbitrary  and  materialistic  ideas  on  marriage.  It  was 
certainly  not  the  Catholic  Church  which  showed  him  the 
way  ;  as  she  had  safeguarded  the  sanctity  of  marriage,  so 
also  she  protected  its  monogamous  character  and  its  in- 
dissolubility. In  Luther's  own  day  the  Papacy  proved  by 
its  final  pronouncement  against  the  adultery  of  Henry  VIII. 
of  England,  that  she  preferred  to  lose  that  country  to  the 
Church  rather  than  sanction  the  dissolving  of  a  rightful 
marriage  (vol.  iv.,  xxi.  1). 

Toleration  for  Concubinage?    Matrimony  no  Sacrament. 

In  exceptional  cases  Luther  permitted  those  bound  to 
clerical  celibacy,  on  account  of  "  the  great  distress  of 
conscience,"  to  contract  "  secret  marriages "  ;  he  even 
expressly  recommended  them  to  do  so.1  These  unions, 
according  to  both  Canon  and  Civil  law,  amounted  to  mere 
concubinage.  Luther  admits  that  he  had  advised  "  certain 
parish  priests,  living  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Duke  George 
or  the  bishops,"  to  "  marry  their  cook  secretly."2 

At  the  same  time,  in  this  same  letter  written  in  1540, 
he  explains  that  he  is  not  prepared  to  "  defend  all  he  had 
said  or  done  years  ago,  particularly  at  the  commencement." 
Everything,  however,  remained  in  print  and  was  made  use 
of  not  only  by  those  to  whom  it  was  actually  addressed, 
but  by  many  others  also ;  for  instance,  his  outrageous  letter 
to  the  Knights  of  the  Teutonic  Order  who  were  bound  by 
vow  to  the  celibate  state.  Any  of  them  who  had  a  secret, 
illicit  connection,  and  "  whoever  found  it  impossible  to  live 
chastely,"  he  there  says,  "  was  not  to  despair  in  his  weak- 
ness and  sin,  nor  wait  for  any  Conciliar  permission,  for  I 
would  rather  overlook  it,  and  commit  to  the  mercy  of  God 
the  man  who  all  his  life  has  kept  a  pair  of  prostitutes,  than 
the  man  who  takes  a  wife  in  compliance  with  the  decrees  of 
such  Councils."  "  How  much  less  a  sinner  do  you  think 
him  to  be,  and  nearer  to  the  grace  of  God,  who  keeps  a 
prostitute,  than  the  man  who  takes  a  wife  in  that  way  ?  "3 

Of  the  Prince-Abbots,  who,  on  account  of  the  position  they 
occupied  in  the  Empire,  were  unable  to  marry  so  long  as 

1  Letter  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  1540,  reprinted  by  Seidemann  in 
Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  198.  "  2  Ibid. 

3  Letter  of  December,  1523,  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  12,  p.  237  f .  ; 
Erl.  ed.,  29,  p.  16  ("  Brief wechsel,"  4,  p.  266).  For  the  letters,  to  the 
Teutonic  Order  and  concerning  the  Abbots,  cp.  our  vol.  ii.,  p.  120. 


MARRIAGE   NO  SACRAMENT       263 

they  remained  in  the  monastery,  he  likewise  wrote  :  "I 
would  prefer  to  advise  such  a  one  to  take  a  wife  secretly 
and  to  continue  as  stated  above  [i.e.  remain  in  office], 
seeing  that  among  the  Papists  it  is  neither  shameful  nor 
wrong  to  keep  women,  until  God  the  Lord  shall  send  other- 
wise as  He  will  shortly  do,  for  it  is  impossible  for  things  to 
remain  much  longer  as  they  are.  In  this  wise  the  Abbot 
would  be  safe  and  provided  for."1 

Here  again  we  see  how  Luther's  interest  in  promoting 
apostasy  from  Rome  worked  hand  in  hand  with  the  lax 
conception  he  had  been  led  to  form  of  marriage. 

Of  any  sacrament  of  matrimony  he  refused  to  hear.  To 
him  marriage  was  really  a  secular  matter,  however  much 
he  might  describe  it  as  of  Divine  institution  :  "  Know,  that 
marriage  is  an  outward,  material  thing  like  any  other 
secular  business."2  "  Marriage  and  all  that  appertains  to  it 
is  a  temporal  thing  and  does  not  concern  the  Church  at  all, 
except  in  so  far  as  it  affects  the  conscience."3  "Marriage 
questions  do  not  concern  the  clergy  or  the  preachers,  but  the 
authorities  ;  theirs  it  is  to  decide  on  them  "  ;  this,  the 
heading  of  one  of  the  chapters  of  the  German  Table-Talk, 
rightly  describes  its  contents.4 

In  Luther's  denial  of  the  sacramental  character  of 
matrimony  lies  the  key  to  the  arbitrary  manner  in  which, 
as  shown  by  the  above,  he  handled  the  old  ecclesiastical 
marriage  law.  It  was  his  ruling  ideas  on  faith  and  justifica- 
tion which  had  led  him  to  deny  that  it  was  a  sacrament. 
The  sacraments,  in  accordance  with  this  view,  have  no 
other  object  or  effect  than  to  kindle  in  man,  by  means  of 
the  external  sign,  that  faith  which  brings  justification.  Now 
marriage,  to  his  mind,  was  of  no  avail  to  strengthen  or 
inspire  such  faith.  As  early  as  1519  he  bewails  the  lack  in 
matrimony  of  that  Divine  promise  which  sets  faith  at  work 
("  quae  fidem  exerceat  "),5  and  in  his  Theses  of  February  13, 
1520,  he  already  shows  his  disposition  to  question  its  right 
to  be  termed  a  sacrament.6  In  his  work  "  On  the  Baby- 
lonish Captivity  "  of  the  same  year  he  bluntly  denies  its 

1  To  the  Elector  Johann  of  Saxony,  May  25,  1529,  "  Werke,"  Erl. 
ed.,  54,  p.  75  ("  Brief wechsel,"  7,  p.  102). 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  283  ;   Erl.  ed.,  162,  p.  559. 

3  Ibid.,  Erl.  ed.,  61,  p.  219.  4  Ibid. 

6  To  Spalatin,  December  18,  1519,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  2,  p.  278  f. 
6  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  96  f. 


264         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

sacramental  character,  urging  that  the  Bible  was  silent  on 
the  subject,  that  matrimony  held  out  no  promise  of  salva- 
tion to  be  accepted  in  faith,  and  finally  that  it  was  in  no 
way  specifically  Christian,  since  it  had  already  existed 
among  the  heathen.1  He  ignores  all  that  the  Fathers  had 
taught  regarding  marriage  as  a  sacrament,  with  special 
reference  to  the  passage  in  Ephesians  v.  31  ff.,  and  likewise 
the  ancient  tradition  of  the  Church  as  retained  even  by  the 
Eastern  sects  separated  from  Rome  since  the  fifth  century. 

In  advocating  matrimony,  instead  of  appealing  to  it  as 
a  sacrament,  he  lays  stress  on  its  use  as  a  remedy  provided 
by  God  against  concupiscence,  and  on  its  being  the  founda- 
tion of  that  family  life  which  is  so  pleasing  to  God.  Incident- 
ally he  also  points  out  that  it  is  a  sign  of  the  union  of  Christ 
with  the  congregation.2 

Luther  did  not,  as  has  been  falsely  stated,  raise  marriage 
to  a  higher  dignity  than  it  possessed  in  the  Middle  Ages. 
No  more  unjustifiable  accusation  has  been  brought  against 
Catholic  ages  than  that  marriage  did  not  then  come  in  for 
its  due  share  of  recognition,  that  it  was  slighted  and  even 
regarded  as  sinful.  Elsewhere  we  show  that  the  writings 
dating  from  the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages,  particularly 
German  sermonaries  and  matrimonial  handbooks,  are  a 
direct  refutation  of  these  charges.3 

Luther  on  Matters  Sexual. 

Examples  already  cited  have  shown  that,  in  speaking  of 
sexual  questions  and  of  matters  connected  with  marriage, 
Luther  could  adopt  a  tone  calculated  to  make  even  the 
plainest  of  plain  speakers  wince.  It  is  our  present  duty  to 
examine  more  carefully  this  quality  in  the  light  of  some 
quotations.  Let  the  reader,  if  he  chooses,  look  up  the 
sermon  of  1522,  "  On  Conjugal  Life,"  and  turn  to  pages  58, 
59,  61,  72,  76,  83,  84  ;  or  to  pages  34,  35,  139,  143,  144,  146, 
152,  etc.,  of  his  Exposition  of  Corinthians.4  We  are  com- 
pelled to  ask  :  How  many  theological  or  spiritual  writers, 
in  sermons  intended  for  the  masses,  or  in  vernacular  works, 
ever  ventured  to  discuss  sexual  matters  with  the  nakedness 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  550  ff.  ;   "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  5,  p.  88  seq. 

2  Cp.  Kostlin,  "  Luthers  Theologie,"  22,  pp.  307  f.,  311. 

3  See  vol.  iv.,  xxii.  5. 

4  In  the  first  Erl.  ed.,  vol.  20  (in  the  2nd  edition,  vol.  16,  p.  508  ff  )  ; 
The  Exposition  in  vol.  51,  p.  1  ff. 


PLAIN  SPEAKING  265 

that  Luther  displays  in  his  writing  "  Wyder  den  falsch* 
genantten  geystlichen  Standt  des  Bapst  und  der  Bischoffen  " 
(1522),  in  which  through  several  pages  Luther  compares, 
on  account  of  its  celibacy,  the  Papacy  with  the  abominable 
Roman  god  Priapus.1  In  this  and  like  descriptions  he  lays 
himself  open  to  the  very  charge  which  he  brings  against  the 
clergy  :  "  They  seduce  the  ignorant  masses  and  drag  them 
down  into  the  depths  of  unchastity."2  He  thus  compares 
Popery  to  this,  the  most  obscene  form  of  idolatry,  with  the 
purpose  of  placing  before  the  German  people  in  the  strongest 
and  most  revolting  language  the  abomination  by  which  he 
will  have  it  that  the  Papacy  has  dishonoured  and  degraded 
the  world,  through  its  man-made  ordinances.  Yet  the  very 
words  in  which  he  wrote,  quite  apart  from  their  blatant 
untruth,  were  surely  debasing.  In  the  same  writing  he  also 
expresses  himself  most  unworthily  regarding  the  state  of 
voluntary  celibacy  and  its  alleged  moral  and  physical 
consequences.3 

Here  again  it  has  been  urged  on  Luther's  behalf,  that 
people  in  his  day  were  familiar  with  such  plain  speaking. 
Yet  Luther  himself  felt  at  times  how  unsuitable,  nay, 
revolting,  his  language  was,  hence  his  excuses  to  his  hearers 
and  readers  for  his  want  of  consideration,  and  also  his 
attempt  to  take  shelter  in  Holy  Writ.4  That  people  then 
were  ready  to  put  up  with  more  in  sermons  is  undeniable. 
Catholic  preachers  are  to  be  met  with  before  Luther's  day 
who,  although  they  do  not  speak  in  the  same  tone  as  he, 
do  go  very  far  in  their  well-meant  exhortations  regarding 
sexual  matters,  for  instance,  regarding  the  conjugal  due  in 
all  its  moral  bearings.  Nor  is  it  true  to  say  that  such  things 
occur  only  in  Latin  outlines  or  sketches  of  sermons,  intended 
for  preacher  rather  than  people,  for  they  are  also  to  be  found 
in  German  sermons  actually  preached.  This  disorder  even 
called  forth  a  sharp  rebuke  from  a  Leipzig  theologian  who 
was  also  a  great  opponent  of  Luther's,  viz.  Hieronymus 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  118  ff.  ;   Erl.  ed.,  28,  p.  158  ff. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  127  =  165. 

3  The  passage  was  given  above,  p.  251,  n.  3.  Cp.  "  Werke,"  Weim. 
ed.,  10,  1,  1,  p.  694  ;   Erl.  ed.,  102,  p.  448. 

4  'Appeal  to  the  Old  Testament  :  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  10,  1,  1, 
p.  694;  Erl.  ed.,  102,  p.  448,  with  the  addition:  "We  are  ashamed 
where  there  is  no  need  for  shame."  Ibid.,  10,  2,  p.  118  =  28,  p.  158; 
St.  Peter's  words  (2  Peter  ii.  1  ff.)  obliged  him  to  paint  as  it  deserved 
the  virtue  of  our  clerical  squires. 


266         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

Dungersheim.1 — In  none  of  the  Catholic  preachers  thus 
censured,  do  we,  however,  find  quite  the  same  seasoning 
we  find  in  Luther,  nor  do  they  have  recourse  to  such,  simply 
to  spice  their  rhetoric  or  their  polemics,  or  to  air  new  views 
on  morality. 

His  contemporaries  even,  more  particularly  some 
Catholics,  could  not  see  their  way  to  repeat  what  he  had 
said  on  sexual  matters.2  "  It  must  be  conceded  "  that 
Luther's  language  on  sexual  questions  was  "  at  times 
repulsively  outspoken,  nay,  coarse,  and  that  not  only  to 
our  ears  but  even  to  those  of  his  more  cultured  contem- 
poraries." Thus  a  Protestant  writer.3  Another  admits 
with  greater  reserve  :  "  There  are  writings  of  Luther's 
in  which  he  exceeds  the  limits  of  what  was  then  usual."4 

Certain  unseemly  anecdotes  from  the  Table-Talk  deserve 
to  be  mentioned  here  ;  told  in  the  course  of  conversation 
while  the  wine-cup  went  the  rounds,  they  may  well  be 
reckoned  as  instances  of  that  "  buffoonery ':  for  which 
Melanchthon  reproves  Luther.  Many  of  them  are  not  only 
to  be  found  in  Bindseil's  "  Colloquia  "  based  on  the  Latin 
collection  of  Lauterbach,  and  in  the  old  Latin  collection  of 
Rebenstock,  but  have  left  traces  in  the  original  notes  of  the 
Table-Talk,  for  instance,  in  those  of  Schlaginhaufen  and 
Cordatus.  It  is  not  easy  to  understand  why  Luther  should 
have  led  the  conversation  to  such  topics  ;  in  fact,  these 
improper  stories  and  inventions  would  appear  to  have 
merely  served  the  company  to  while  away  the  time. 

For  example,  Luther  amuses  the  company  with  the  tale  of  a 
Spandau  Provost  who  was  a  hermaphrodite,  lived  in  a  nunnery 
and  bore  a  child  ;5  with  another,  of  a  peasant,  who,  after  listen- 
ing to  a  sermon  on  the  use  of  Holy  Water  as  a  detergent  of  sin, 
proceeded  to  put  what  he  had  heard  into  practice  in  an  indecent 
fashion  ;6  with  another  of  self -mutilated  eunuchs,  in  telling 
which  he  is  unable  to  suppress  an  obscene  joke  concerning  him- 
self.7    He  entertains  the  company  with  some  far  from  witty, 

1  "  Tractatus  de  modo  dicendi  et  docendi  ad  populum,"  printed  at 
Landshut,  1514,  pars  2,  cap.  1. 

2  His  Catholic  pupil  Oldecop  says  in  his  "  Chronicle  "  (p.  191), 
that  he  would  not  repeat  Luther's  "  shameful  words  "  on  the  Sixth 
Commandment. 

3  R.  Seeberg,  "  Luther  und  Lutherthum  in  der  neuesten  kath. 
Beleuchtung,"2  1904,  p.  19.  4  W.  Walther,  "  Fur  Luther,"  p.  616. 

5  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  90. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  49.  7  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p*   177  f. 


SOME   TYPICAL  JESTS  267 

indeed  entirely  tactless  and  indecent  stories,  for  instance,"about 
the  misfortune  of  a  concubine  who  had  used  ink  in  mistake  for 
ointment  ;x  of  the  Beghine  who,  when  violence  was  offered  her, 
refused  to  scream  because  silence  was  enjoined  after  Compline  ;2 
of  a  foolish  young  man's  interview  with  his  doctor  ;3  of  an 
obscene  joke  at  the  expense  of  a  person  uncovered  ;4  of  a  young 
man's  experience  with  his  bathing  dress  ;5  of  women  who  in 
shameless  fashion  prayed  for  a  husband  ;6  of  the  surprise  of 
Duke  Hans,  the  son  of  Duke  George  of  Saxony,  by  his  steward,  etc.7 

These  stories,  in  Bindseil's  "  Colloquia,"  are  put  with  the 
filthy  verses  on  Lemnius,8  the  "  Merdipoeta,"  and  form  a  fit 
sequence  to  the  account  of  Lustig,  the  cook,  and  the  substitute 
he  used  for  sauces.9 

These  anecdotes  are  all  related  more  or  less  in  detail,  but, 
apart  from  them,  we  have  plentiful  indelicate  sayings  and  jokes 
and  allusions  to  things  not  usually  mentioned  in  society,  sufficient 
in  fact  to  fill  a  small  volume. 

Luther,  for  instance,  jests  in  unseemly  fashion  "  amid 
laughter  ' '  on  the  difference  in  mind  and  body  which  distinguishes 
man  from  woman,  and  playfully  demonstrates  from  the  forma- 
tion of  their  body  that  his  Catherine  and  women  in  general  must 
necessarily  be  deficient  in  wit.10  An  ambiguous  sally  at  the 
expense  of  virginity  and  the  religious  life,  addressed  to  the  ladies 
who  were  usually  present  at  these  evening  entertainments,  was 
received  with  awkward  silence  and  a  laugh.11 

On  another  occasion  the  subject  of  the  conversation  was  the 
female  breasts,  it  being  queried  whether  they  were  "  an  orna- 
ment "  or  intended  for  the  sake  of  the  children.12  Then  again 
Luther,  without  any  apparent  reason,  treats,  and  with  great  lack 
of  delicacy,  of  the  circumstances  and  difficulties  attending 
confinement;13  he  also  enters  fully  into  the  troubles  of  pregnancy,14 
and,  to  fill  up  an  interval,  tells  a  joke  concerning  the  womb  of 
the  Queen  of  Poland.15 

I  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  426.  2  Ibid.,  p.  430. 
3  Ibid.,  p.  431.                    4  Ibid.,  p.  432.             5  Ibid. 

6  Ibid.,  436.  7  Ibid.,  432  seq.  8  Ibid.,  p.  432. 

9  Ibid.,  430.  In  Rebenstock's  Latin  version  :  "  Cocus  jocundus 
.   .   .  cum  camem  .  .  .  non  poterat,  etc.,  anu  Mam  conspurcaviscaV 

10  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  8  :  "  Ridens  sapientiam,  qua  esse 
volebat  sua  Catharina  :  Creator  formavit  masculum  lato  pectore  et  non 
latis  femoribus,  ut  capax  sedes  sapientiae  esset  in  viro  ;  latrinam  vero, 
qua  stercora  eiciuntur,  ei  parvam  fecit.  Porro  haec  in  femina  sunt 
inversa.  Ideo  multum  habent  stercorum  midieres,  sapientiae  autem 
parum."  Such  passages  do  not  tend  to  the  higher  appreciation  of  the 
female  sex  with  which  Luther  has  been  credited. 

II  "  Ego  quaero  quare  mulieres  non  optant  fieri  virgines  ?  Et  tacuerunt 
omnes  et  omnes  siluerunt  ridentes."    Ibid.,  p.  177  f. 

12  Lauterbach,  "Tagebuch,"  p.  166.  13  Ibid.,  p.  184. 

14  "Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  3,  p.  74. 

15  Lauterbach,  ibid.,  p.  185.  Cp.  Cordatus,  p.  286  ;  "  Eunuchi  plus 
omnibus  ardent  nam  appetitus  castratione  non  perit,  sed  potentia.  Ich 
wolt  mir  lieber  zwey  paar  °  [thus  the  Halle  MS.—  testiculos]  ansetzen 
lassen,  denn  eins  ausschneiden.' 


268         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

In  the  Table-Talk  Luther  takes  an  opportunity  of  praising  the 
mother's  womb  and  does  so  with  a  striking  enthusiasm,  after 
having  exclaimed  :  "  No  one  can  sufficiently  extol  marriage." 
"  Now,  in  his  old  age,"  he  understood  this  gift  of  God.  Every 
man,  yea,  Christ  Himself,  came  from  a  mother's  womb.1 

Among  the  passages  which  have  been  altered  or  suppressed  in 
later  editions  from  motives  of  propriety  comes  a  statement  in  the 
Table-Talk  concerning  the  Elector  Johann  Frederick,  who  was 
reputed  a  hard  drinker.  In  Aurifaber's  German  Table-Talk  the 
sense  of  the  passage  is  altered,  and  in  the  old  editions  of  Stangwald 
and  Selnecker  the  whole  is  omitted. 2 

Of  the  nature  of  his  jests  the  following  from  notes  of  the  Table- 
Talk  gives  a  good  idea  :  "It  will  come  to  this,"  he  said  to 
Catherine  Bora,  "  that  a  man  will  take  more  than  one  wife.  The 
Doctoress  replied  :  '  Tell  that  to  the  devil  !  '  The  Doctor  pro- 
ceeded :  Here  is  the  reason,  Katey :  a  wife  can  have  only  one 
child  a  year,  but  the  husband  several.  Katey  replied  :  '  Paul 
says:  "Let  everyone  have  his  own  wife."  Whereupon  the 
Doctor  retorted  :  '  His  own,'  but  not  '  only  one,'  that  you  won't 
find  in  Paul.  The  Doctor  teased  his  wife  for  a  long  time  in  this 
way,  till  at  last  she  said  :  '  Sooner  than  allow  this,  I  would  go 
back  to  the  convent  and  leave  you  with  all  the  children.'  "3 

When  the  question  of  his  sanction  of  Philip  of  Hesse's  bigamy 
and  the  scandal  arising  from  it  came  under  discussion,  his 
remarks  on  polygamy  were  not  remarkable  for  delicacy.  He 
says  :  "  Philip  (Melanchthon)  is  consumed  with  grief  about  it. 
.  .  .  And  yet  of  what  use  is  it  ?  ...  I,  on  the  contrary  am  a 
hard  Saxon  and  a  peasant.  .  .  .  The  Papists  could  have  seen 
how  innocent  we  are,  but  they  refused  to  do  so,  and  so  now  they 
may  well  look  the  Hessian  '  in  anum.'  .  .  .  Our  sins  are  pardon- 
able, but  those  of  the  Papists,  unpardonable  ;  for  they  are 
contemners  of  Christ,  have  crucified  Him  afresh  and  defend  their 
blasphemy  wittingly  and  wilfully.  What  are  they  trying  to  get 
out  of  it  [the  bigamy]  ?  They  slay  men,  but  wre  work  for  our 
living  and  marry  many  wives."  "This  he  said  with  a  merry  air 
and  amid  much  laughter,"  so  the  chronicler  relates.  "  God  is 
determined  to  vex  the  people,  and  if  it  comes  to  my  turn  I  shall 
give  them  the  best  advice  and  tell  them  to  look  Marcolfus  '  in 
anum,'  "  etc.4  On  rising  from  table  he  said  very  cheerfully  :  "  I 
will  not  give  the  devil  and  the  Papists  a  chance  of  making  me 
uneasy.  God  will  put  it  right,  and  to  Him  we  must  commend  the 
whole  Church."5  By  such  trivialities  did  he  seek  to  escape  his 
burden  of  oppression. 

1  Mathesius,  "  Aufzeichnungen  "  (Kroker),  p.  82.     Said  in  1540. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  373.  In  1536.  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  57,  p.  361  :  "  Wer 
nicht  Wunder,  so  er  venereus  wer,  das  er  sein  Freulein  todtgearbeitet 
hette."  3  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  69. 

4  The  reference  to  the  Hessian  is  founded  on  a  popular  tale  of 
Marcolfus  and  King  Solomon.     See  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  526. 

5  Mathesius,  "Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  117  f.  Cp.  in  the  Table-Talk 
of  the  Mathesius  Collection,  ed.  Kroker,  p.  156  f.,  a  similar  account 
of  this  conversation  dating  from  1540,  11-19  June.     It  begins  :    "  Ego 


A  LETTER   TO  SPALATIN  269 

On  one  occasion  he  said  he  was  going  to  ask  the  Elector  to 
give  orders  that  everybody  should  "  fill  themselves  with  drink  "  ; 
then  perhaps  they  would  abandon  this  vice,  seeing  that  people 
were  always  ready  to  do  the  opposite  of  what  was  commanded  ; 
what  gave  rise  to  this  speech  on  drinking  was  the  arrival  of  three 
young  men,  slightly  intoxicated,  accompanied  by  a  musical 
escort.  The  visitors  interrupted  the  conversation,  which  had 
turned  on  the  beauty  of  women.1 

Many  of  Luther's  letters,  as  well  as  his  sermons,  lectures  and 
Table-Talk,  bear  sad  witness  to  his  unseemly  language.  It  may 
suffice  here  to  mention  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  of  these 
letters,  while  incidentally  remarking,  that,  from  the  point  of 
view  of  history,  the  passages  already  cited,  or  yet  to  be  quoted, 
must  be  judged  of  in  the  light  of  the  whole  series,  in  which  alone 
they  assume  their  true  importance.  In  a  letter  written  in  the 
first  year  of  his  union,  to  his  friend  Spalatin,  who  though  also 
a  priest  was  likewise  taking  a  wife,  he  says  :  "  The  joy  at  your 
marriage  and  at  my  own  carries  me  away  "  ;  the  words  which 
follow  were  omitted  in  all  the  editions  (Aurifaber,  De  Wette, 
Walch),  Enders  being  the  first  to  publish  them  from  the  original. 
They  are  given  in  the  note  below.2 

Luther  himself  was  at  times  inclined  to  be  ashamed 
of  his  ways  of  speaking,  and  repeatedly  expresses  regret, 
without,  however,  showing  any  signs  of  improvement.  We 
read  in  Cordatus's  Diary  that  (in  1527,  during  his  illness)  "  he 
asked  pardon  for  the  frivolous  words  he  had  often  spoken 

occallui  sum  rusticus  et  durus  Saxo  [a  pun  on  the  Latin  word]  ad 
eiusmodi  X  "  (Luther  probably  made  use  of  a  word  against  which 
the  pen  of  the  writer  revolted.  Kroker's  note).  Later  :  "  Ipsi 
(papistae)  occidunt  homines,  nos  laboramus  pro  vita  et  ducimus  plures 
uxores."  The  end  of  this  discourse,  as  Loesche  and  Kroker  have 
shown,  contains  verbal  reminiscences  of  Terence,  with  whom  Luther 
must  have  been  well  acquainted  from  the  days  of  his  youth. 

1  Mathesius,  "Tischreden,"  Kroker,  p.  373. 

2  "  Saluta  tuam  conjugem  suavissime,  verum  ut  id  turn  facias  cum 
in  thoro  suavissimis  amplexibus  et  osculis  Catharinam  tenueris,  ac 
sic  cogitaveris :  en  hunc  hominem,  optimam  creaturulam  Dei  mei, 
donamt  mihi  Christus  meus,  sit  Mi  laus  et  gloria.  Ego  quoque  cum 
divinavero  diem  qua  has  acceperis,  ea  node  simili  opere  meam  amabo 
in  tui  memoriam  et  tibi  par  pari  referam.  Salutat  et  te  et  cottam 
tuam  mea  costa  in  Christo.  Gratia  vobiscum.  Amen."  Letter  of 
December  6,  1525.  An  esteemed  Protestant  historian  of  Luther 
declared  recently  in  the  "  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  "  that  he  was 
charmed  with  Luther's  "  wholesome  and  natural  spirit,  combined  with 
such  hearty  piety."  The  explanation  is  that  this  historian  disagrees 
with  the  "  shy  reticence  "  now  observed  in  these  matters  as  at  variance 
with  the  "  higher  moral  sense,"  and  looks  on  what  "  Thomas  says 
of  the  actus  matrimonialis  "  as  an  "entire  perversion  of  the  sound  ethics 
of  matrimony."  Another  historian  "  thanks  Luther  warmly  for  this 
letter,"  whilst  a  third  scholar  extols  "  the  depth  of  feeling  with  which 
Luther,  as  a  married  man,  comprehends  the  mystery  of  neighbourly 
love  within  marriage." 


270         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

with  the  object  of  banishing  the  melancholy  of  a  weak 
flesh,  not  with  any  evil  intent."1  At  such  moments  he 
appears  to  have  remembered  how  startling  a  contrast  his 
speeches  and  jests  presented  to  the  exhortation  of  St.  Paul 
to  his  disciples,  and  to  all  the  preachers  of  the  Gospel : 
"  Make  thyself  a  pattern  to  all  men  ...  by  a  worthy  mode 
of  life;  let  thy  conversation  be  pure  and  blameless  "  (Titus 
ii.  7  f.).  "  Be  a  model  to  the  faithful  in  word,  in  act,  in 
faith  and  charity,  in  chastity  "  (1  Tim.  iv.  12). 

It  would  be  wrong  to  believe  that  he  ever  formally  declared 
foul  speaking  to  be  permissible.  It  has  been  said  that,  in 
any  case  in  theory,  he  had  no  objection  to  it,  and,  that,  in 
a  letter,  he  even  recommends  it.  The  passage  in  question, 
found  in  an  epistle  addressed  to  Prince  Joachim  of  Anhalt, 
who  was  much  troubled  with  temptations  to  melancholy, 
runs  thus  :  "  It  is  true  that  to  take  pleasure  in  sin  is  the 
devil,  but  to  take  pleasure  in  the  society  of  good,  pious 
people  in  the  fear  of  God,  sobriety  and  honour  is  well 
pleasing  to  God,  even  with  possibly  a  word  or  '  Zotlein  ' 
too  much."2  The  expression  "  Zotlein  "  (allied  with  the 
French  "  sottise  ")  did  not,  however,  then  bear  the  bad 
meaning  suggested  by  the  modern  German  word  "  Zote," 
and  means  no  more  than  a  jest  or  merry  story  ;  that  such  a 
meaning  was  conveyed  even  by  the  word  "  Zote  "  itself  can 
readily  be  proved. 

Especially  was  it  Luther's  practice  to  load  his  polemics 
with  a  superabundance  of  filthy  allusions  to  the  baser 
functions  of  the  body  ;  at  times,  too,  we  meet  therein 
expressions  and  imagery  positively  indecent. 

In  his  work  "  Vom  Schem  Hamphoras  "  against  the  Jews  he 
revels  in  scenes  recalling  that  enacted  between  Putiphar's  wife 
and  Joseph,  though  here  it  is  no  mere  temptation  but  actual 
mutual  sin  ;  the  tract  contains  much  else  of  the  same  character.3 
In  the  notorious  tract  entitled  "  Wider  Hans  Worst,"  which  he 
wrote  against  Duke  Henry  of  Brunswick  (1541),  he  begins 
by  comparing  him  with  a  "  common  procuress  walking  the  street 
to  seize,  capture  and  lead  astray  honest  maidens  "  ; 4  he  gradually 
works  himself  up  into  such  a  state  of  excitement  as  to  describe 
the  Church  of  Rome  as  the  "  real  devil's  whore  "  ;  nay,  the 
"  archdevil's  whore,"   the   "  shameless  prostitute  "   who  dwells 

1  More  on  this,  vol.  v.,  xxxii.  4  f. 

2  Letter  of  May  23,  1534,  "  Brief wechsel,"  10,  p.  48  ;  "  Werke," 
Erl.  ed..  54,  p.  55. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  32,  pp.  340  f.,  342  ff.,  346  f.      *  Ibid.,  26,  p.  6. 


REPULSIVE    COARSENESS  271 

in  a  "  whores'  church  "  and  houses  of  ill-fame,  and  compared 
with  whom,  as  we  have  already  heard  him  say  elsewhere,  "  common 
city  whores,  field  whores,  country  whores  and  army  whores"1 
may  well  be  deemed  saints.  In  this  work  such  figures  of  speech 
occur  on  almost  every  page.  Elsewhere  he  describes  the  motions 
of  the  "  Roman  whore  "  in  the  most  repulsive  imagery.2 

The  term  "  whore  "  is  one  of  which  he  is  ever  making  use, 
more  particularly  in  that  connection  in  which  he  feels  it  will  be 
most  shocking  to  Catholics,  viz.  in  connection  with  professed 
religious.  Nor  does  he  hesitate  to  use  this  word  to  describe 
human  reason  as  against  faith.  In  such  varied  and  frenzied 
combinations  is  the  term  met  with  in  his  writings  that  one  stands 
aghast.  As  he  remarked  on  one  occasion  to  his  pupil  Schlagin- 
haufen,  people  would  come  at  last  to  look  upon  him  as  a  pimp. 
He  had  been  asked  to  act  as  intermediary  in  arranging  a  marriage  : 
"  Write  this  down,"  he  said,  "Is  it  not  a  nuisance  ?  Am  I 
expected  to  provide  also  the  women  with  husbands  ?  Really 
they  seem  to  take  me  for  a  pander."3 

Even  holy  things  were  not  safe  in  Luther's  hands,  but 
ran  the  risk  of  being  vilified  by  outrageous  comparisons 
and  made  the  subject  of  improper  conversations. 

According  to  Lauterbach's  Diary,  for  instance,  Luther  dis- 
coursed in  1538  on  the  greatness  of  God  and  the  wisdom  manifest 
in  creation  ;  in  this  connection  he  holds  forth  before  the  assembled 
company  on  the  details  of  generation  and  the  shape  of  the  female 
body.  He  then  passes  on  to  the  subject  of  regeneration  :  ;'  We 
think  we  can  instruct  God  '  in  regenerationis  et  salvationis 
articulo,'  we  like  to  dispute  at  great  length  on  infant  baptism 
and  the  occult  virtue  of  the  sacraments,  and,  all  the  while,  poor 
fools  that  we  are,  we  do  not  know  '  unde  sint  stercora  in 
venire.'  "4  Over  the  beer-can  the  conversation  turns  on  temper- 
ance, and  Luther  thereupon  proposes  for  discussion  an  idea  of 
Plato's  on  procreation  ;5  again  he  submits  an  ostensibly  difficult 
"  casus  "  regarding  the  girl  who  becomes  a  mother  on  the  frontier 
of  two  countries  ;6  he  relates  the  tale  of  the  woman  who  "  habitu 
viri  et  memhro  ficto  "  "  duas  uxores  duxit";7  he  dilates  on  a 
"  marvellous  "  peculiarity  of  the  female  body,  which  one  would 
have  thought  of  a  nature  to  interest  a  physician  rather  than  a 
theologian.8  He  also  treats  of  the  Bible  passage  according  to 
which  woman  must  be  veiled  "  on  account  of  the  angels  "  (1  Cor. 
xi.  11),  adding  with  his  customary  vulgarity  :  "And  I  too  must 
wear  breeches  on  account  of  the  girls."9    When  the  conversation 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  26,  pp.  23-26. 

2  Ibid.,  63,  p.  394  ("  Tischreden  "). 

3  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeiehnungen,"  p.  82 

4  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  87  (Khummer). 
6  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  3,  p.  73. 

a  Ibid.,  p.  1.  7  Ibid.,  p.  2.  8  Ibid.,  p.  74. 

8  Cordatus,   "  Tagebuch,"  p.   426. 


272         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER. 

turned  on  the  marriage  of  a  young  fellow  to  a  lady  of  a  certain 
age  he  remarked,  that  at  such  nuptials  the  words  "  Increase 
and  multiply  "  ought  not  to  be  used  ;  as  the  poet  says  :  "Arvinam 
quaerunt  multi  in  podice  porci,"  surely  a  useless  search.1  The 
reason  "  why  God  was  so  angry  with  the  Pope  "  was,  he  elsewhere 
informs  his  guests,  because  he  had  robbed  Him  of  the  fruit  of 
the  body.  ' '  We  should  have  received  no  blessing  unless  God  had 
implanted  our  passions  in  us.  But  to  the  spark  present  in  both 
man  and  wife  the  children  owe  their  being  ;  even  though  our 
children  are  born  ugly  we  love  them  nevertheless."2 — He  then 
raises  his  thoughts  to  God  and  exclaims  :  "  Ah,  beloved  Lord 
God,  would  that  all  had  remained  according  to  Thine  order  and 
creation."  But  what  the  Pope  had  achieved  by  his  errors  was 
well  known  :  "  We  are  aware  how  things  have  gone  hitherto." 
"  The  Pope  wanted  to  enforce  celibacy  and  to  improve  God's 
work."  But  the  monks  and  Papists  ".  .  .  are  consumed  with 
concupiscence  and  the  lust  of  fornication."3 — Take  counsel  with 
someone  beforehand,  he  says,  "  in  order  that  you  may  not  repent 
after  the  marriage.  But  be  careful  that  you  are  not  misled  by 
advice  and  sophistry,  else  you  may  find  yourself  with  a  sad  handful 
.  .  .  then  He  Who  drives  the  wheel,  i.e.  God,  will  jeer  at  you. 
But  that  you  should  wish  to  possess  one  who  is  pretty,  pious 
and  wealthy,  nay,  my  friend  ...  it  will  fare  with  you  as  it  did 
with  the  nuns  who  were  given  carved  Jesus's  and  who  cast 
about  for  others  who  at  least  were  living  and  pleased  them 
better."4 

Thus  does  Luther  jumble  together  unseemly  fancies, 
coarse  concessions  to  sensuality  and  praise  for  broken  vows, 
with  thoughts  of  the  Divine. 

Anyone  who  regards  celibacy  and  monastic  vows  from  the 
Catholic  standpoint  may  well  ask  how  a  man  intent  on 
throwing  mud  at  the  religious  state,  a  man  who  had  broken 
his  most  sacred  pledges  by  his  marriage  with  a  nun,  could 
be  in  a  position  rightly  to  appreciate  the  delicate  blossoms 
which  in  every  age  have  sprung  up  on  the  chaste  soil  of 
Christian  continence  in  the  lives  of  countless  "priests  and 
religious,  not  in  the  cloister  alone,  but  also  in  the  world 
without  ? 

Of  his  achievements  in  this  field,  of  his  having  trodden 
celibacy  under  foot,  Luther  was  very  proud.    To  the  success 

1  See  above,  p.  228,  n.  6.  It  is  strange  to  note  that  Mathesius  com- 
mences the  paragraph  in  question  thus  :  "  As  occasion  arose  all  sorts 
of  wise  sayings  fell  from  his  lips.  The  man  was  full  of  grace  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  for  which  reason  all  who  sought  counsel  from  him  as  from 
God's  own  prophet  found  what  they  needed.  One  of  them  once  asked 
whether  it  would  be  a  real  marriage  were  a  young  fellow,"  etc. 

2  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  99. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl,  ed.,  61,  p.  204.  4  Ibid.,  p.  172. 


" FATHER  OF  A  GREAT  PEOPLE"  273 

of  his  unholy  efforts  he  himself  gave  testimony  in  the  words 
already  mentioned  :  "I  am  like  unto  Abraham  [the  Father 
of  the  Faithful]  for  I  am  the  progenitor  of  all  the  monks, 
priests  and  nuns  [who  have  married],  and  of  all  the  many 
children  they  have  brought  into  the  world  ;  I  am  the  father 
of  a  great  people."1 

By  his  attacks  on  celibacy  and  the  unseemliness  of  his 
language  Luther,  nevertheless,  caused  many  to  turn  away 
from  him  in  disgust.  Duke  Anton  Ulrich  of  Brunswick,  who 
reverted  to  Catholicism  in  1710,  states  in  a  writing  on  the 
step  he  had  taken,  that  it  was  due  to  some  extent  to  his 
disgust  at  Luther's  vulgarity.  "  What  writer,"  he  says, 
"  has  left  works  containing  more  filth  ?  .  .  .  Such  was  his 
way  of  writing  that  his  followers  at  the  present  day  are 
ashamed  of  it."  He  had  compared  the  character  of  this 
reformer  of  the  Church,  so  he  tells  us,  with  that  of  the 
apostolic  men  of  ancient  times.  In  striking  contrast  they 
were  "  pious,  God-fearing  men,  of  great  virtue,  temperate, 
humble,  abstemious,  despising  worldly  possessions,  not 
given  to  luxury,  having  only  the  salvation  of  souls 
before  their  eyes "  ;  particularly  did  they  differ  from 
Luther  in  the  matter  of  purity  and  chastity.2 

6.   Contemporary  Complaints.     Later  False  Reports 

Those  of  his  contemporaries  who  speak  unfavourably  of 
Luther's  private  life  belong  to  the  ranks  of  his  opponents. 
His  own  followers  either  were  acquainted  only  with  what 
was  to  his  advantage,  or  else  took  care  not  to  commit  them- 
selves to  any  public  disapproval.  To  give  blind  credence  in 
every  case  to  the  testimony  of  his  enemies  would,  of  course, 
be  opposed  to  the  very  rudiments  of  criticism,  but  equally 
alien  to  truth  and  justice  would  it  be  to  reject  it  unheard. 
In  each  separate  case  it  must  depend  on  the  character  of 
the  witness  and  on  his  opportunity  for  obtaining  reliable 
information  and  forming  a  just  opinion,  how  much  we  credit 
his  statements. 

Concerning  the  witnesses  first  to  be  heard,  we  must  bear 
in  mind,  that,  hostile  as  they  were  to  Luther,  they  had  the 

1  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  426. 

2  "  Cinquante  raisons,"  etc.,  Munick,  1736,  consid.  25,  p.  32  s.  1 
have  access  only  to  the  French  edition  of  this  work,  published  originally 
in  German  and  Latin. 

III. — T 


274         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

opportunity  of  seeing  him  at  close  quarters.  How  far  their 
statements  are  unworthy  of  credence  (for  that  they  are 
not  to  be  taken  exactly  at  their  word  is  clear  enough)  cannot 
be  determined  here  in  detail.  The  mere  fact,  however,  that, 
at  Wittenberg  and  in  Saxony,  some  should  have  written 
so  strongly  against  Luther  would  of  itself  lead  us  to  pay 
attention  to  their  words.  In  the  case  of  the  other  witnesses 
we  shall  be  able  to  draw  some  sort  of  general  inference  from 
their  personal  circumstances  as  to  the  degree  of  credibility 
to  be  accorded  them.  While  writers  within  Luther's  camp 
were  launching  out  into  fulsome  panegyrics  of  their  leader, 
it  is  of  interest  to  listen  to  what  the  other  side  had  to  say, 
even  though,  there  too,  the  speakers  should  allow  them- 
selves to  be  carried  away  to  statements  manifestly  ex- 
aggerated. 

Simon  Lemnius,  the  Humanist,  who,  owing  to  his  satirical 
epigrams  on  the  Wittenberg  professor — whom  he  had  known 
personally — was  inexorably  persecuted  by  the  latter,  wrote,  in 
his  "  Apology,"  about  1539,  the  following  description  of  Luther's 
life  and  career.  This  and  the  whole  "  Apology,"  was  suppressed 
by  the  party  attacked  ;  the  later  extracts  from  this  writing, 
published  by  Schelhorn  (1737)  and  Hansen  (1770),  passed  over 
it  in  silence,  till  it  was  at  last  again  brought  to  light  in  1892  : 
"  While  Luther  boasts  of  being  an  evangelical  bishop,  how  comes 
it  that  he  lives  far  from  temperately  ?  For  he  is  in  the  habit  of 
overloading  himself  with  food  and  drink  ;  he  has  his  court  of 
flatterers  and  adulators  ;  he  has  his  Venus  [Bora]  and  wants 
scarcely  anything  which  could  minister  to  his  comfort  and 
luxury."1  "He  has  written  a  pamphlet  against  me,  in  which, 
as  both  judge  and  authority,  he  condemns  and  mishandles  me. 
Surely  no  pastor  would  arrogate  to  himself  such  authority  in 
temporal  concerns.  He  deprives  the  bishops  of  their  temporal 
power,  but  himself  is  a  tyrant  ;  he  circulates  opprobrious  and 
quite  execrable  writings  against  illustrious  Princes.  He  natters 
one  Prince  and  libels  another.  What  is  this  but  to  preach  revolt 
and  to  pave  the  way  for  a  general  upheaval  and  the  downfall  of 
our  States  ?  ...  It  is  greatly  to  be  feared,  that,  should  war 
once  break  out,  first  Germany  will  succumb  miserably  and  then 
the  whole  Roman  Empire  go  to  ruin.  Meanwhile  Luther  sits  like 
a  dictator  at  Wittenberg  and  rules  ;  what  he  says  must  be 
taken  as  law."2 

1  "  S.B.  Bohm.  Gesellschaft  der  Wissenschaften,"  1892,  p.  123.  In 
this  volume  Constantine  Hotter  has  reprinted  the  lost  "Apology"  with 
a  preface,  p.  79  ff.  Cp.  E.  Michael,  "  Luther  und  Lemnius,  wittenber- 
gische  Inquisition,  1538,"  in  "  Zeitschr.  fur  kath.  Theol.,"  19,  1895, 
p.  450  ff.,  where  the  passage  in  question  is  given  in  Latin. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  136.    Michael,  ibid.,  p.  465. 


CONTEMPORARY   STRICTURES      275 

By  the  Anabaptists  Luther's  and  his  followers'  "weak  life" 
was  severely  criticised  about  1525.  Here  we  refer  only  cursorily 
to  the  statements  already  quoted,1  in  order  to  point  out  that 
these  opponents  based  their  theological  strictures  on  a  general, 
and,  in  itself,  incontrovertible  argument  :  "  Where  Christian 
faith  does  not  issue  in  works,  there  the  faith  is  neither  rightly 
preached  nor  rightly  accepted."2  In  Luther  they  were  unable 
to  discern  a  "  spark  of  Christianity,"  though  his  "  passionate 
and  rude  temper"  was  evident  enough.3  "The  witless,  self- 
indulgent  lump  of  flesh  at  Wittenberg,"  Dr.  Luther,  was  not 
only  the  "  excessively  ambitious  Dr.  Liar,  but  also  a  proud  fool,"4 
whose  "  defiant  teaching  and  selfish  ways  "  were  far  removed 
from  what  Christ  and  His  Apostles  had  enjoined.  In  spite  of  the 
manifest  spiritual  desolation  of  the  people  Luther  was  wont  to 
sit  "  with  the  beer-swillers  "  and  to  eat  "  sumptuous  repasts  "  ; 
he  had  even  tolerated  "  open  harlotry  "  on  the  part  of  some  of 
the  members  of  the  University  although,  as  a  rule,  he  "  manfully 
opposed  "  this  vice.5 

Catholic  censors  were  even  stronger  in  their  expression  of  in- 
dignation. Dungersheim  of  Leipzig,  in  spite  of  his  polemics  an 
otherwise  reliable  witness,  though  rather  inclined  to  rhetoric, 
in  the  fourth  decade  of  the  century  reproached  him  in  his  "  Thirty 
Articles  "  for  leading  a  "  life  full  of  scandal  "  ;  he  likewise 
appeals  to  some  who  had  known  him  intimately,  and  was  ready, 
if  necessary,  "  to  relate  everything,  down  to  the  circumstances 
and  the  names."6  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  this  theologian 
never  defined  his  charges. 

From  the  Duchy  of  Saxony,  too,  came  the  indignant  voice  of 
bluff  Duke  George,  whom  Luther  had  attacked  and  slandered 
in  so  outrageous  a  fashion  :  "  Out  upon  you,  you  forsworn  and 
sacrilegious  fellow,  Martin  Luther  (may  God  pardon  me),  public- 
house  keeper  for  all  renegade  monks,  nuns  and  apostates  !  "7 
He  calls  him  "  Luther,  you  drunken  swine,"  you  "  most  un- 
intelligent bacchant  and  ten  times  dyed  horned  beast  of  whom 
Daniel  spoke  in  chapter  viii.,  etc."8  Luther  had  called  this 
Prince  a  "  bloodhound  "  ;  he  is  paid  back  in  his  own  coin  : 
"  You  cursed,  perjured  bloodhound  "  ;  he  was  the  "  arch- 
murderer,"  body  and  soul,  of  the  rebellious  peasants,  "  the  biggest 
murderer  and  bloodhound  ever  yet  seen  on  the  surface  of  the 
globe."9  "You  want  us  to  believe  that  no  one  has  written  more 
beautifully  of  the  Emperor  and  the  Empire  than  yourself.  If 
what  you  have  written  of  his  Imperial  Majesty  is  beautiful,  then 
my  idea  of  beauty  is  all  wrong  ;  for  it  would  be  easy  to  find 

1  Vol.  ii.,  pp.  129  f.,  364,  368  f.,  376. 

2  Ickelsamer,  "  Clag  etlicher  Briider,"  ed.  Enders,  p.  48.  See  our 
vol.  ii.,  p.  368  n.  3  Enders,  p.  52. 

4  Miinzer,  "  Hochverursachte  Schutzrede  und  Antwort,"  ed. 
Enders,  p.  18  ff. 

5  See  vol.  ii.,  p.  130  f.  «  Art.  17,  p.  81. 

7  In  answer  to  the  screed,  "  Widder  den  Meuchler  zu  Dresen  "  1531, 
reprinted  in  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  252,  p.  145. 

8  Ibid.,  pp.  139,  141.  a  Ibid.,  p.  148  f. 


276         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

tipsy  peasants  in  plenty  who  can  write  nine  times  better  than 
you."1 

From  the  theologian  Ambrosius  Catharinus  we  hear  some 
details  concerning  Luther's  private  life. 

On  the  strength  of  hearsay  reports,  picked  up,  so  it  would 
appear,  from  some  of  the  visitors  to  the  Council  of  Trent  in  1546 
and  1547,  this  Italian,  who  was  often  over-ardent  both  in  attack 
and  defence,  wrote  in  the  latter  year  his  work  :  "  De  considera- 
tione  praesentium  temporum  libri  quattuor."  Here  he  says  : 
"  Quite  reliable  witnesses  tell  me  of  Luther,  that  he  frequently 
honoured  the  wedding  feasts  of  strangers  by  his  presence,  went 
to  see  the  maidens  dance  and  occasionally  even  led  the  round 
dance  himself.  They  declare  that  he  sometimes  got  up  from  the 
banquets  so  drunk  and  helpless  that  he  staggered  from  side  to 
side,  and  had  to  be  carried  home  on  his  friends'  shoulders."2 

As  an  echo  of  the  rumours  current  in  Catholic  circles  we  have 
already  mentioned  elsewhere  the  charges  alleged  in  1524  by 
Ferdinand  the  German  King,  and  related  by  Luther  himself, 
viz.  that  he  "  passed  his  time  with  light  women  and  at  playing 
pitch-and-toss  in  the  taverns."3  We  have  also  recorded  the 
vigorous  denunciation  of  the  Catholic  Count,  Hoyer  of  Mansfeld, 
which  dates  from  a  somewhat  earlier  period  ;  this  came  from  a 
man  whose  home  was  not  far  from  Luther's,  and  to  whose  char- 
acter no  exception  has  been  taken.  Hoyer  wrote  that  whereas 
formerly  at  Worms  he  had  been  a  "  good  Lutheran,"  he  had 
now  "  found  that  Luther  was  nothing  but  a  knave,"  who,  as 
the  way  was  at  Mansfeld,  filled  himself  with  drink,  was  fond  of 
keeping  company  with  pretty  women,  and  led  a  loose  life,  for 
which  reason  he,  the  Count,  had  "fallen  away  altogether."4 
The  latter  statements  refer  to  a  period  somewhere  about  1522, 
i.e.  previous  to  Luther's  marriage.  With  regard  to  that  critical 
juncture  in  the  year  1525  some  consideration  must  be  given  to 
what  Bugenhagen  says  of  Luther's  marriage  in  his  letter  to 
Spalatin,  which  really  voices  the  opinion  of  Luther's  friends  at 
Wittenberg  :  "  Evil  tales  were  the  cause  of  Dr.  Martin's  becom- 
ing a  married  man  so  unexpectedly."5    The  hope  then  expressed 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  252,  p.  140. 

2  Venetiis,  1547.  In  1548  Johann  Cochlaeus  collected  Catharinus's 
strictures  on  Luther  out  of  three  of  the  former's  writings,  and  entitled 
his  work  "  De  persona  et  doctrina  M.  Lutheri  judicium  fratris  A. 
Catharini,"  etc.,  Moguntiae,  1548.  The  above  quotation  appears  in 
this  collection,  fol.  C.  2a.  For  an  account  of  the  great  services  rendered 
by  Catharinus,  who  for  all  his  piety  was  yet  too  prejudiced  and  com- 
bative, see  Joseph  Schweizer,  "  Ambrosius  Catharinus  Politus,"  1910 
("  Reformationsgeschichtl.  Studien  und  Texte,"  ed.  J.  Greving,  Hft. 
11  and  12).  Cp.  the  remarks  of  others  living  at  a  distance  given  below, 
p.  294  ff.,  and  the  Roman  reports  mentioned  by  Jacob  Ziegler  (vol.  ii., 
p.  133). 

3  Luther  to  Spalatin  on  January  14,  1524,  "  Brief wechsel,"  4, 
p.  278.     See  our  vol.  ii.,  p.  133. 

4  See  vol.  ii.,  p.  132  f. 

5  Letter  of  June  16,  1525;  "  Maligna  jama  effecit,"  etc.  See  vol.  ii., 
p.  175. 


CONTEMPORARY  STRICTURES       277 

by  Melanchthon,  that  marriage  would  sober  Luther  and  that  he 
would  lay  aside  his  unseemliness,1  was  scarcely  to  be  realised. 
Melanchthon,  however,  no  longer  complains  of  it,  having  at  length 
grown  resigned.  Yet  he  continued  to  regret  Luther's  bitterness 
and  irritability  :  "  Oh,  that  Luther  would  only  be  silent  !  I  had 
hoped  that  as  he  advanced  in  years  his  many  difficulties  and 
riper  experience  would  make  him  more  gentle  ;  but  I  cannot  help 
seeing  that  in  reality  he  is  growing  even  more  violent  than  before. 
.   .  .  Whenever  I  think  of  it  I  am  plunged  into  deep  distress."2 

Leo  Judse,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  Swiss  Reformation,  and 
an  opponent  of  Wittenberg,  "  accuses  Luther  of  drunkenness 
and  all  manner  of  things  ;  such  a  bishop  [he  says]  he  would  not 
permit  to  rule  over  even  the  most  insignificant  see."  Thus  in  a 
letter  to  Bucer  on  April  24,  1534,  quoted  by  Theodore  Kolde  in 
his  "  Analecta  Lutherana,"3  who,  unfortunately,  does  not  give 
the  actual  text.  According  to  Kolde,  Leo  Judse  continues  : 
"  Even  the  devil  confesses  Christ.  I  believe  that  since  the 
time  of  the  Apostles  no  one  has  ever  spoken  so  disgracefully 
('  turpiter  ')  as  Luther,  so  ridiculously  and  irreligiously.  Unless 
we  resist  him  betimes,  what  else  can  we  expect  of  the  man  but 
that  he  will  become  another  Pope,  who  orders  things  first  one 
way  then  another  ('  fmgit  et  refingit '),  consigns  this  one  to  Satan 
and  that  one  to  heaven,  puts  one  man  out  of  the  Church  and 
receives  another  into  it  again,  until  things  come  to  such  a  pass 
that  he  acts  as  Judge  over  all  whilst  no  one  pays  the  least  atten- 
tion to  him  ?  "  With  the  exception  of  rejecting  infant  baptism, 
so  Kolde  goes  on,  Luther  appeared  to  Judse  no  better  than 
Schwenckfeld,  with  whom  Bucer  would  have  nought  to  do  ; 
Judse  proceeds  :  "  Not  for  one  hundred  thousand  crowns  would 
I  have  all  evangelical  preachers  to  resemble  Luther  ;  no  one 
could  compare  with  him  for  his  wealth  of  abuse  and  for  his 
woman-like,  impotent  agitation  ;  his  clamour  and  readiness  of 
tongue  are  nowhere  to  be  equalled."4 

Powerful  indeed  is  the  rhetorical  outburst  of  Zwingli  in  a  letter 
to  Conrad  Sam  the  preacher  of  Ulm,  dated  August  30,  1528  : 
"  May  I  be  lost  if  he  [Luther]  does  not  surpass  Faber  in  foolish- 
ness, Eck  in  impurity,  Cochlseus  in  impudence,  and  to  sum  it  up 
shortly,  all  the  vicious  in  vice."5 

Heinrich  Bullinger,  Zwingli 's  successor,  attacks  Luther  in  his 
"  Warhafften  Bekanntnuss  "  of  1545  in  reply  to  the  latter 's 
"  Kurtz  Bekentnis  "  :  "  The  booklet  [Luther's]  is  so  crammed 
with  devils,  unchristian  abuse,  immoral,  wicked,  and  unclean 
words,  anger,  rage  and  fury  that  all  who  read  it  without  being 
as  mad  as  the  author  must  be  greatly  surprised  and  astonished, 

1  See  vol.  ii.,  p.  176,  n.  3. 

2  Letter  to  Camerarius,  April  11,  1526.     "Corp.  ref.,"  1,  p.  794. 

3  Page.  205  ;    "  aus  dem  Thesaurus  Baum  in  Strassburg." 
*  Kolde,  ibid.,  p.  229. 

5  Quoted  by  R.  Stahelin,  "  Huldreich  Zwingli,"  2,  Basle,  1897, 
p.  311,  and  "Briefe  aus  der  Reformationszeit,"  Basle,  1887,  p.  21 :  "si 
non  stultitia  Fabrum  superat,  impuritate  Eccium,  audacia  Cocleum,  et 
quid  multa,  omnia  omnium  vitia,"  etc. 


278         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

that  so  old,  gifted,  experienced  and  reputable  a  man  cannot 
keep  within  bounds  but  must  break  out  into  such  rudeness  and 
filth  as  to  ruin  his  cause  in  the  eyes  of  all  right-thinking  men."1 

Johann  Agricola,  at  one  time  Luther's  confidant  and  well 
acquainted  with  all  the  circumstances  of  his  life,  but  later  his 
opponent  on  the  question  of  Antinomianism,  left  behind  him 
such  abuse  of  Luther  that,  as  E.  Thiele  says,  "it  is  difficult  to 
believe  such  language  proceeds,  not  from  one  of  Luther's  Roman 
adversaries,  but  from  a  man  who  boasts  of  having  possessed  his 
special  confidence."  He  almost  goes  so  far,  according  to  Thiele, 
as  to  portray  him  as  a  "  drunken  profligate  "  ;  he  says,  "  the 
pious  man,"  the  "  man  of  God  ('  vir  Dei  '),"  allowed  himself  to 
be  led  astray  by  the  "  men  of  Belial,"  i.e.  by  false  friends,  and 
was  inclined  to  be  suspicious  ;  he  bitterly  laments  the  scolding 
and  cursing  of  which  his  works  were  full.  One  of  his  writings, 
"  Against  the  Antinomians  "  (1539),  was,  he  says,  "  full  of  lies  "  ; 
in  it  Luther  had  accused  him  in  the  strongest  terms  and  before 
the  whole  world  of  being  a  liar  ;  it  was  "  an  abominable  he  " 
when  Luther  attributed  to  him  the  statement,  that  God  was  not 
to  be  invoked  and  that  there  was  no  need  of  performing  good 
works.  When  Luther's  tract  was  read  from  the  pulpit  even  the 
Wittenbergers  boggled  at  these  lies  and  said  :  "  Now  we  see 
what  a  monk  is  capable  of  thinking  and  doing."  Agricola  also 
describes  Luther's  immediate  hearers  and  pupils  at  Wittenberg 
as  mere  "  Sodomites,"  and  the  town  as  the  "  Sister  of  Sodom."2 
Such  is  the  opinion  of  this  restless,  passionate  man,  who  bitterly 
resented  the  wrong  done  him  by  Luther.     (See  vol.  v.,  xxix.  3.) 

Not  all  the  above  accusations  are  entirely  baseless,  for 
some  are  confirmed  by  other  proofs  quite  above  suspicion. 
The  charge  of  habitual  drunkenness,  as  will  be  shown  below 
(xvii.  7),  must  be  allowed  to  drop  ;  so  likewise  must  that  of 
having  been  a  glutton  and  of  having  constantly  pandered 
to  sensual  passion ;  that  Luther  sanctioned  immorality 
among  his  friends  and  neighbours  can  scarcely  be  squared 
with  his  frequent  protests  against  the  disorders  rife  at  the 
University  of  Wittenberg ;  finally,  we  have  to  reduce  to  their 
proper  proportions  certain,  in  themselves  justifiable,  subjects 
of  complaint.  That,  however,  everything  alleged  against 
him  was  a  pure  invention  of  his  foes,  only  those  can  believe 
whom  prejudice  blinds  to  everything  which  might  tell 
against  their  hero. 

The  charges  of  the  Swiss  theologians,  though  so  strongly 
expressed,  refer  in  the  main  to  Luther's  want  of  restraint 

1  Fol.  3,  9.  Quoted  by  N.  Paulus  in  the  "  Hist.  Jahrb.,"  26,  1905, 
p.  852. 

2  "  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken,"  1907,  p.  246  ff.  (Excerpts  given 
by  the  Protestant  scholar  E.  Thiele,  from  a  Bible  at  Wernigerode.) 


UNTRUE  TALES  279 

in  speech  and  writing  ;  the  vigour  of  their  defensive  tactics 
it  is  easy  enough  to  understand,  and,  at  any  rate,  Luther's 
writings  are  available  for  reference  and  allow  us  to  appreciate 
how  far  their  charges  were  justified. 

Another  necessary  preliminary  remark  is  that  no  detailed 
accusation  was  ever  brought  against  Luther  of  having  had 
relations  with  any  woman  other  than  his  wife  ;  nothing  of 
this  nature  appears  to  have  reached  the  ears  of  the  writers 
in  question.  Due  weight  must  here  be  given  to  Luther's 
constant  anxiety  not  to  compromise  the  Evangel  by  any 
personal  misconduct.  (See  vol.  ii.,  p.  133.)  Luther,  natur- 
ally enough,  was  ever  in  a  state  of  apprehension  as  to  what 
his  opponents  might,  rightly  or  wrongly,  impute  to  him. 
That  he  was  liable  to  be  misrepresented,  particularly  by 
foreigners  (Aleander  [vol.  ii.,  p.  78]  and  Catharinus),  is  plain 
from  the  examples  given  above.  The  distance  at  which 
Catharinus  resided  from  Wittenberg  led  him  to  lend  a 
willing  ear  to  the  reports  brought  by  "  reliable  men,"  need- 
less to  say  opponents  of  Luther. 

The  deep  dislike  felt  by  faithful  Catholics  for  the  Witten- 
berg professor  and  their  lively  abhorrence  for  certain  moral 
doctrines  expressed  by  him  in  extravagant  language,1 
formed  a  fertile  soil  for  the  growth  of  legends ;  some  of  these, 
met  with  amongst  the  literary  defenders  of  Catholicism 
after  Luther's  death,  have  been  propagated  even  in  modern 
times,  and  accordingly  call  for  careful  examination  at  the 
hands  of  the  Catholic  critic.  Where  Luther  himself  speaks  we 
are  on  safe  ground,  as  the  method  employed  above  shows. 
Where,  however,  we  have  to  listen  to  strangers  doubt  must 
needs  arise,  and  the  task  of  discriminating  becomes  inevitable, 
owing  to  the  speaker's  probable  prejudice  either  for  or 
against  Luther.  This  applies,  as  we  have  already  seen,  even 
to  Luther's  contemporaries,  but  it  holds  good  even  more 
as  we  approach  modern  times,  when,  in  the  heat  of  contro- 
versy, things  were  said  concerning  alleged  historical  facts, 
for  instance,  Luther's  immorality,  which  were  certainly  quite 
unknown  to  his  own  contemporaries.  Many  of  Luther's 
accusers  had  never  read  his  works,  possibly  had  not  even 
troubled  to  look  up  a  single  one  of  the  facts  or  passages 

1  We  have  only  to  recall  the  exaggerations  concerning  the  power  of 
faith  alone,  even  in  the  case  of  the  filthiest  sins,  e.g.  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed., 
8,  p.  527  f.  ;  Erl.  ed.,  28,  p.  92.  Cp.  above,  pp.  177,  180  ff.,  185  ff.,  196,  etc. 


280         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

cited.  We  must,  however,  remember — a  fact  which  serves 
to  some  extent  to  explain  the  regrettable  lack  of  exactitude 
and  discernment — that  the  prohibition  of  reading  Luther's 
writings  was  on  the  whole  strictly  enforced  by  the  authori- 
ties of  the  Church  and  conscientiously  obeyed  by  the 
faithful,  even  by  writers.  Only  rarely  in  olden  days1  were 
dispensations  granted.  Thus,  when  attacking  Luther, 
writers  were  wont  to  utilise  passages  quoted  by  earlier 
writers,  often  truncated  excerpts  given  without  the  con- 
text. Misunderstood  or  entirely  incorrect  accounts  of 
events  connected  with  his  life  were  accepted  as  facts,  of 
which  now,  thanks  to  his  works  and  particularly  to  his 
letters,  we  are  in  a  better  position  to  judge.  Many  seemed 
unaware  that  the  misunderstandings  were  growing  from 
age  to  age,  the  reason  being  that  instead  of  taking  as 
authorities  the  best  and  oldest  Luther  controversialists, 
those  of  a  later  date  were  preferred  in  whose  writings  facts 
and  quotations  had  already  undergone  embellishment. 
In  this  wise  the  older  popular  literature  came  to  attribute  to 
Luther  the  strangest  statements  and  to  make  complaints 
for  which  no  foundation  existed  in  fact.  Incautious  inter- 
pretation by  more  recent  writers,  whose  training  scarcely 
fitted  them  for  the  task  and  who  might  have  learnt  better 
by  consulting  Luther's  works  and  letters,  has  led  to  a  still 
greater  increase  of  the  evil. 

In  the  following  pages  we  propose  to  examine  rather  more 
narrowly  certain  statements  which  appear  in  the  older  and 
also  more  recent  controversial  works. 

Had  Luther  three  children  of  his  own  apart  from  those  born  of  his 

union  with  Bora  ? 

By  his  wife  Luther  was  father  to  five  children,  viz.  Hans  (1526), 
Magdalene  (1529),  Martin  (1531),  Paul  (1533)  and  Margaret 
(1534). 

The  paternity  of  another  child  born  of  a  certain  Rosina 
Truchsess,  a  servant  in  his  house,  has  also  been  ascribed  to  him, 
it  being  alleged  that  his  references  to  this  girl  are  very  com- 
promising.2    The  latter  assertion,  however,  does  not  hold  good, 

1  "  The  reading  of  heretical  books  was  made  difficult  even  for  the 
Jesuits."  B.  Duhr,  "  Gesch.  der  Jesuiten  in  den  Landern  deutscher 
Zunge,"  1,  1907,  p.  657.  The  learned  polemical  writers  of  the  Society- 
did,  however,  make  use  of  the  writings  of  heretics,  Luther's  inclusive, 
as  is  clear  from  their  works. 

2  "  Briefe,"  ed.  De  Wette,  5,  pp.  395,  506,  625,  753. 


UNTRUE  TALES  281 

if  only  we  read  the  passages  in  an  unprejudiced  spirit  ;  at  most 
they  prove  that  Luther  allowed  his  kindliness  to  get  the  better 
of  his  caution  in  receiving  into  his  house  one  who  subsequently 
proved  herself  to  be  both  untruthful  and  immoral,  and  that, 
when  by  her  misconduct  she  had  compromised  her  master  and 
his  family,  he  was  exceedingly  angry  with  her.  It  is  incorrect  to 
say  that  Rosina  ever  designated  Luther  as  the  father  of  her 
baby. 

The  second  child  was  one  named  Andreas,  of  whom  Luther 
is  said  to  have  spoken  as  his  son.  This  boy,  however,  has  been 
proved  to  have  been  his  nephew,  Andreas  Kaufmann,  who  was 
brought  up  in  Luther's  family.  Only  through  a  mistake  of  the 
editor  is  he  spoken  of  in  the  Table-Talk  as  "  My  Enders  "  and 
"  My  son  "  ;  later  a  fresh  alteration  of  the  text  resulted  in  : 
"  filius  meus  Andreas."1 

The  third  child  was  said  to  have  been  referred  to  in  the  Table- 
Talk  as  an  "  adulter  infans,"  in  a  passage  where  mention  is  made 
of  its  having  been  suckled  by  Catherine  during  pregnancy.  In 
Aurifaber's  Table-Talk  (1569  edition)  "  adulterum  infantem"  is, 
however,  a  misprint  for  "  alteram  infantem,"  which  is  the  true 
reading  as  it  appears  in  the  first  (1568)  edition.  It  is  true  that 
the  passage  in  question  mentions  of  two  of  Luther's  own  children, 
that  his  wife  was  already  with  child  before  the  first  had  been 
weaned. 2 

Luther  and  Catherine  Bora. 

A  letter  which  Luther  wrote  to  his  wife  from  Eisleben  shortly 
before  the  end  of  his  life,  when  he  was  staying  at  the  Court  of  the 
Count  of  Mansfeld,  has  been  taken  as  an  admission  of  immo- 
rality :  "I  am  now,  thanks  be  to  God,  in  a  good  case  were  it  not 
for  the  pretty  women  who  press  me  so  hard  that  I  again  go  in 
fear  and  peril  of  unchastity."3  What  exactly  means  this  refer- 
ence to  unchastity  ?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  after  having  partially 
recovered  from  his  malady,  he  is  here  seeking  to  allay  his  wife's 
anxiety  by  adopting  a  jesting  tone,  though  perhaps  exception 
might  be  taken  to  the  nature  of  his  jest.  That  what  he  says  was  in- 
tended as  a  joke  is  plain  also  from  the  superscription  of  the  letter, 
addressed  to  the  "  Pork  dealer,"  an  allusion  to  her  purchase 
of  a  garden  close  to  the  Wittenberg  pig-market.  In  the 
letter  he  explains  humorously  to  his  anxious  wife  (this  too 
has  been  taken  seriously),  that  his  catarrh  and  giddiness  had 
been  wholly  caused  by  the  Jews,  viz.  by  a  cold  wind  raised  up 
against  him  by  them  or  their  God  (he  was  just  then  engaged  in  a 
controversy  with  the  Jews). — The  superscriptions  of  the  various 
letters  to  Catherine  and  the  jesting  remarks  they  contain  have 
also  been  taken  far  too  tragically.     Luther  was  wont  to  address 

1  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  141,  n.,  and  p.  v.     Andreas  matricu- 
lated at  the  University  of  Wittenberg  in  1538. 

2  Cp.  also  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.   112;    Cordatus, 
"  Tagebuch,"  p.  430. 

3  On  February  1,  1546,  "  Briefe,"  ed.  De  Wette,  5,  p.  783. 


282         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

her  as  deeply-learned  dame,  gracious  lady,  holy  and  careful  lady, 
most  holy  Katey,  Doctoress,  etc.,  also  as  My  Lord  Katey  and 
Gracious  Lord  Katey.  It  may  be  that  the  latter  appellations 
refer  to  a  certain  haughtiness  peculiar  to  her  ;  but  it  would  be  to 
misunderstand  him  entirely  to  see  in  this  or  even  in  the  name 
"  Kette  "  =  chain,  which  he  applies  to  her  now  and  then,  an 
involuntary  admission  that  he  was  bound  by  the  fetters  of  a 
self-willed  wife.  We  have  seen  how  he  once  spoke  of  her  in  a 
letter  previous  to  his  marriage  as  his  "  mistress  "  (Metze),  which 
has  led  careless  controversialists  to  fancy  that  Luther  quite 
openly  had  admitted  that  she  was  "  his  concubine  "  (vol.  ii., 
p.  183).  At  any  rate,  not  only  was  Luther's  language  unseemly 
in  many  of  his  letters  and  in  his  intercourse  with  his  Wittenberg 
circle,  but  this  license  of  speech  seems  even  to  have  infected 
the  ladies  of  the  party,  at  least  if  we  may  credit  Simon  Lemnius 
who,  on  the  strength  of  what  he  had  seen  at  Wittenberg,  says 
that  the  wives  of  Luther,  Justus  Jonas  and  Spalatin  vied  with 
each  other  in  indecent  stories  and  confidences.1  Thus  we 
cannot  take  it  amiss  if  the  Catholics  of  that  day,  to  whose  ears 
came  such  rumours — doubtless  already  magnified — were  too  ready 
to  credit  them  and  to  give  open  expression  to  their  surmises. 
An  instance  of  this  is  what  Master  Joachim  von  der  Heyden 
wrote,  in  1528,  to  Catherine  Bora,  viz.  that  she  had  lived  with 
Luther  before  their  marriage  in  shameful  and  open  lewdness — 
as  was  said.2 

Did  Luther  indulge  in  "  the  Worst  Orgies  "  with  the  Escaped  Nuns 
in  the  Black  Monastery  of  Wittenberg  ? 

To  give  an  affirmative  reply  to  this  would  call  for  very  strong 
proofs,  which,  in  point  of  fact,  are  not  forthcoming.  The  passage 
in  the  Latin  Table-Talk3  quoted  in  justification  contains  nothing 
of  the  sort,  but,  strange  to  say,  a  very  fine  exhortation  to  conti- 
nence. For  this  reason  we  must  again  consider  it,  though  it  has 
already  been  dealt  with.  The  exhortation  commences  with  the 
words  :  "  God  is  Almighty,  Eternal,  Merciful,  Longsuffering, 
Chaste,  etc.  He  loves  chastity,  purity,  modesty.  He  aids  and 
preserves  it  by  the  sacred  institution  of  marriage  in  order  that 
[as  Paul  says]  each  one  may  possess  his  vessel  in  sanctification, 
free  from  unbridled  lust.  He  punishes  rape,  adultery,  fornica- 
tion, incest  and  secret  sins  with  infamy  and  terrible  bodily 
consequences.  He  warns  such  sinners  that  they  shall  have  no 
part  in  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Therefore  let  us  be  watchful  in 
prayer,"  etc.  It  is  true,  however,  that  this  pious  exhortation  is 
set  off  by  frivolous  remarks,  and  it  is  probably  one  of  these 
which  suggested  the  erroneous  reference.  Luther  here  speaks  of 
his  young  "  relative,"  Magdalene  Kaufmann — a  girl  of  marriage- 
able age  living  in  his  house — and  of  two  other  maidens  of  the 

1  Sim.  Lemnius,  "  Monachopornomachia,"  a  satire  against  Luther. 
Cp.  Strobel,  "  Neue  Beitrage  zur  Literatur,"  3,  1,  p.  137  ff. 

2  In  Enders,  "  Luthers  Brief wechsel,"  6,  p.  334. 

3  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Rebenstock,  Francof.,  1571,  2,  fol.  95. 


UNTRUE   TALES  283 

same  age,  remarking  that  formerly  people  had  been  ready  for 
marriage  at  an  earlier  age  than  now,  but  that  he  was  ready  to 
vouch  for  the  fitness  of  these  three  wenches  for  conjugal  work, 
even  to  staking  his  wife  on  it,  etc.  Of  any  "  wicked  orgies  "  we 
hear  nothing  whatever.  Further,  it  is  inexact  to  state,  as  has 
been  done,  that  Luther  was  surrounded  in  "  his  dwelling  "  by 
nuns  whom  he  had  given  a  lodging.  Neither  before  nor  after 
his  marriage  did  they  stay  with  him  permanently  ;  as  already 
stated  (vol.  ii.,  p.  138)  he  either  handed  over  the  escaped  nuns 
to  their  friends  or  lodged  them  in  families  at  Wittenberg.  Only 
on  one  occasion,  in  September,  1525,  when  in  the  hurry  it  was 
impossible  to  find  accommodation  for  a  new  band  of  fugitives, 
did  he  receive  them  temporarily,  possibly  only  for  a  few  days, 
in  the  great  "Black  Monastery."1  There,  as  he  himself  then 
expressed  it,  he  was  "  privatus  pater  familias." 

The  Passages  "  which  will  not  bear  repetition." 

The  popular  writer  who  is  responsible  for  the  tale  of  the 
11  orgies  "  also  declares,  there  are  "  other  admissions  of  Luther's  " 
"  which  will  not  bear  repetition."  No  such  admissions  exist. 
The  phrase  that  this  or  that  will  not  bear  repetition  is,  however, 
a  favourite  one  among  controversialists  of  a  certain  school, 
though  very  misleading  ;  many,  no  doubt,  will  have  been  quite 
disappointed  on  looking  up  the  passages  in  question  in  Luther's 
writings  to  find  in  them  nothing  nearly  so  bad  as  they  had  been 
led  to  expect  ;  this,  indeed,  was  one  of  the  reasons  which  im- 
pelled us  rigidly  to  exclude  from  the  present  work  any  reservation 
and  to  give  in  full  even  the  most  revolting  passages.  Of  one  of 
Luther's  Theses  against  the  theologians  of  Louvain  we  read,  for 
instance,  in  a  controversial  pamphlet  which  is  not  usually 
particular  about  the  propriety  of  its  quotations,  that  the  author 
does  "  not  dare  reproduce  it  "  ;  yet,  albeit  coarsely  worded,  the 
passage  in  question  really  contains  nothing  so  very  dreadful,  and, 
as  for  its  coarseness,  it  is  merely  such  as  every  reader  of  Luther's 
works  is  prepared  to  encounter.  The  passage  thus  incriminated, 
which  reads  comically  enough  in  its  scholastic  presentation 
(Thesis  31),  runs  as  follows:  " '  Deinde  nihil  ex  scripturis,  sed 
omnia  ex  doctrinis  hominum  ructant  [Lovanienses],  vomunt  et 
cacant  in  ecclesiam,  non  suam  sed  Dei  viventis."2  The  German 
translation  in  the  original  edition  of  1545  slightly  aggravates  the 
wording  of  the  Thesis. 3 

1  They  were  received  on  September  29,  1525.  "  Brief wechsel,"  5, 
p.  248. 

2  "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  4,  486. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  65,  p.  170.  It  has  been  asserted  by  contro- 
versialists that  another  version  of  the  German  translation  of  these 
Theses  had  already  been  made  in  1545  from  which  some  of  the  most 
"  swinish  expressions  "  were  omitted  through  motives  of  modesty. 
Of  any  such  revision  during  Luther's  lifetime  nothing  is,  however, 
known.  Probably  the  reference  is  to  Caspar  Cruciger's  translation 
which  is  placed  next  to  the  older  translation  in  Walch's  edition  of 


284         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

Two  other  assertions  to  Luther's  disadvantage  have 
something  in  common  ;  one  represents  as  the  starting-point 
of  the  whole  movement  which  he  inaugurated  his  desire  to 
"  wed  a  girl  "  ;  the  other  makes  him  declare,  three  years 
before  the  end  of  his  life  and  as  the  sum-total  of  his  experi- 
ence, that  the  lot  of  the  hog  is  the  most  enviable  goal  of 
happiness.1  A  third  statement  goes  back  to  his  early  youth 
and  seeks  to  find  the  explanation  of  his  later  faults  in  a 
temptation  succumbed  to  when  he  was  little  more  than  a 
boy.  The  facts,  alleged  to  belong  to  his  early  history,  may 
be  taken  in  connection  with  kindred  matters  and  examined 
more  carefully  than  was  possible  when  relating  the  details 
of  his  early  development.  After  that  we  shall  deal  with  the 
story  of  the  "  hog." 

Did  Luther,  as  a  Young  Monk,  say  tliat  he  would  push  on  until 

he  could  wed  a  Girl  ? 

Such  is  the  story,  taken  from  a  Catholic  sermon  preached  in 
1580  by  Wolfgang  Agricola  and  long  exploited  in  popular  anti- 
Lutheran  writings  as  a  proof  that  Luther  really  made  such  a 
statement.  A  "  document,"  an  "  ancient  deed,"  nay,  even  a 
confidential  "  letter  to  his  friend  Spalatin,"  containing  the 
statement  have  also  been  hinted  at ;  all  this,  however,  is  non- 
existent ;   all  that  we  have  is  the  story  in  the  sermon. 

The  sermon,  which  is  to  be  found  in  an  old  Ingolstadt  prints 
contains  all  sorts  of  interesting  religious  memories  of  Spalatin, 
the  influential  friend  of  Luther's  youthful  days.  The  preacher 
was  Dean  in  the  little  town  of  Spalt,  near  Nuremberg,  Spalatin's 
birthplace,  from  which  the  latter  was  known  by  the  name  of 
Spalatinus,  his  real  name  being  Burkard.  The  recollections  are 
by  no  means  all  of  them  equally  vouched  for,  and  hence  we 
must  go  into  them  carefully  in  order  rightly  to  appreciate  the 

Luther's  works  (19,  p.  2258).  But  examination  proves  that  Cruciger 
by  no  means  weakened  the  wording,  indeed,  his  rendering  is  in  some 
instances  even  stronger,  for  instance,  that  of  Theses  35,  42,  61,  and  64. 
The  "  Swine-theologians  of  Louvain,"  alluded  to  in  his  title,  do  not 
appear  here  in  the  original  German  edition. 

1  The  latter  statement  was  in  great  part  withdrawn  by  one  con- 
troversial writer  of  standing,  but  not  before  it  had  been  made  their 
own  by  the  lesser  fry. 

2  "  Ein  christenliche  Predig  von  dem  heyligen  Ehestandt  durch 
Wolfgangum  Agricolam  Spalatinum,"  Ingolstadt,  1580  (Miinchener 
Staatsbibliothek,  Horn.  53,  8°).  Cp.  the  "  Eichstatter  Pastoralblatt," 
1880,  No.  27  ff.,  where  accounts  taken  from  a  Spalt  Chronicle  of 
Wolfgang  Agricola's,  according  to  an  Eichstatt  MS.  (n.  248),  are  given, 
and  where  is  printed  the  passage  referring  to  Luther  in  the  sermon  to  be 
discussed  later.  In  the  Suttner  index  of  Eichstatt  books  the  sermon  is 
numbered  258,  which  explains  certain  mistaken  references  to  the 
"  ancient  deed." 


UNTRUE   TALES  285 

value  of  each.  We  shall  see  that  those  dealing  with  Luther's 
love- adventures  are  the  least  to  be  trusted. 

Agricola  first  gives  some  particulars  concerning  Spalatin's 
past,  which  seem  founded  on  reliable  tradition  ;  in  this  his 
object  is  to  confirm  Catholics  in  their  fidelity  to  the  Church. 
Spalatin,  in  the  course  of  a  journey,  came  to  his  birth- 
place and,  with  forty-six  gulden,  founded  a  yearly  Mass  for 
his  parents,  the  anniversary  having  been  kept  ever  since,  "  even 
to  the  present  day."  It  is  evident  that  this  was  vouched  for  by 
written  documents.  To  say,  as  some  Protestants  have,  that  this 
and  what  follows  is  the  merest  invention,  is  not  justified.  Agricola 
goes  on  to  inform  us  that  Spalatin  settled  the  finances  of  the  family, 
and  that,  on  this  occasion,  he  presented  to  the  township  of  Spalt 
a  picture  of  Our  Lady,  which  had  once  belonged  to  the  Schloss- 
kirche  of  Wittenberg,  requesting,  however,  that,  out  of  considera- 
tion for  Luther,  the  fact  of  his  being  the  donor  should  be  kept 
secret  until  after  his  death.  Agricola  also  tells  how,  during  his 
stay,  Spalatin  invited  the  "  then  Dean,  Thomas  Ludel,"  with 
the  members  of  the  chapter  to  be  his  guests,  and  in  turn  accepted 
their  hospitality  ;  he  also  attended  the  Catholic  sermons  in  order 
to  ascertain  how  the  Word  of  God  was  preached.  Thomas 
Ludel,  the  Dean,  found  opportunity  quite  frankly  to  discuss 
Spalatin's  religious  attitude,  whereupon  the  latter  said  :  "  Stick 
to  your  own  form  of  Divine  Service,"  nor  did  Spalatin  shrink 
from  giving  the  same  advice  to  the  people.  Every  year,  says 
Agricola,  the  picture  of  Our  Lady  which  he  had  presented  was 
placed  on  the  High  Altar  to  remind  the  faithful  of  the  exhortation 
of  their  fellow-citizen.1  The  picture  in  question  is  still  to  be 
seen  to-day  at  Spalt.2  The  narrator  goes  so  far  as  to  declare, 
that  during  the  Dean's  observations  on  his  religious  conduct 
"  the  tears  came  to  Spalatin's  eyes  "  ;  "I  admit,"  he  said, 
"  that  we  carried  things  too  far.  .  .  .  God  be  merciful  to  us  all !  " 
From  Luther's  correspondence  we  know  that  Spalatin,  in  later 
days,  was  much  disquieted  by  melancholy  and  temptations  to 
despair.  Luther,  by  his  letters,  sought  to  inspire  his  friend  as  he 
approached  the  close  of  his  life  with  confidence  in  Christ,  agreeably 
with  the  tenets  of  the  new  Evangel.3 

Almost  all  that  Agricola  here  relates  appears,  from  its  local 
colouring,  to  be  absolutely  reliable,  but  this  is  by  no  means  the 
case  with  what  is  of  more  interest  to  us,  viz.  the  account  of  Luther 
as  prospective  bridegroom  which  he  appends  to  his  stories  of 
Spalatin.  The  difference  between  this  account  and  what  has 
gone  before  cannot  fail  to  strike  one. 

1  In  the  sermon  quoted,  p.  95. 

2  See  the  "  Eichstatter  Pastoralblatt,"  ibid.  "  Spalatins  Mutter- 
gottesbild." 

3  To  Spalatin,  August  21,  1544,  Letters,  ed.  De  Wette,  5,  p.  679  ff. 
See  above,  p.  197,  n.  1.  In  the  last  years  of  his  life  Spalatin  fell  into 
incurable  melancholy  which  finally  brought  him  to  the  grave  (January 
16,  1546).  Cp.  J.  Wagner,  "  Georg  Spalatin,"  Altenburg,  1830,  p.  105  f. 
Luther  was  unacquainted  with  the  actual  cause  of  his  fears,  but  says 
that  some  persons  thought  they  were  due  to  remorse  for  having  given 
his  sanction  to  an"  illegal  marriage. 


286         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

According  to  this  story  of  Agricola's,  set  in  a  period  some  three- 
quarters  of  a  century  earlier,  Luther,  as  a  young  Augustinian,  at 
Erfurt  struck  up  a  friendship  with  Spalatin  who  was  still  study- 
ing there.  At  the  University  were  two  other  youths  from  Spalt, 
George  Ferber,  who  subsequently  became  Doctor,  parish-priest 
and  Dean  of  Spalt,  and  Hans  Schlahinhauffen.  All  four  became 
fast  friends,  and  Luther  was  a  frequent  visitor  at  the  house  where 
they  lived  with  a  widow  who  had  a  pretty  daughter.  He  became 
greatly  enamoured  of  the  girl  and  "taught  her  lace-making," 
until  the  mother  forbade  him  the  house.  He  often  declared  : 
"  Oh,  Spalatin,  Spalatin,  you  cannot  believe  how  devoted  I  am 
to  this  pretty  maid  ;  I  will  not  die  before  I  have  brought  things 
to  such  a  pass  that  I  also  shall  be  able  to  marry  a  nice  girl." 
Eventually,  with  the  assistance  of  Spalatin,  Luther,  so  we  are 
told,  introduced  his  innovations,  partly  in  order  to  make  himself 
famous,  partly  in  order  to  be  able  to  marry  a  girl. 1 

It  is  hardly  probable  that  Wolfgang  Agricola  himself  invented 
this  story  of  the  monk  ;  more  likely  he  found  it  amongst  the 
numerous  tales  concerning  Spalatin  current  at  Spalt.  His 
authority  for  the  tale  he  does  not  give.  It  can  scarcely  have 
emanated  from  Spalatin  himself — for  instance,  have  been  told 
by  him  on  the  occasion  of  the  visit  mentioned  above — for  then 
Agricola  would  surely  have  said  so.  It  more  probably  belongs  to 
that  category  of  obscure  myths  clustering  round  the  early  days 
of  Luther's  struggle  with  the  Church. 

What  is,  however,  of  greater  importance  is  that  the  monk's 
behaviour,  as  here  described,  does  not  tally  with  the  facts  known. 
During  his  first  stay  at  the  Erfurt  monastery  Luther  was  not 
by  any  means  the  worldly  young  man  here  depicted,  and  even 
during  his  second  sojourn  there  (autumn,  1508 — autumn,  1510) 
no  one  remarked  any  such  tendency  in  him  ;  on  the  contrary, 
the  seven  Observantine  priories  chose  him  as  their  representative 
at  Rome,  presumably  because  he  was  a  man  in  whom  they  could 
trust.  We  may  call  to  mind  that  the  then  Cathedral  Provost  of 
Magdeburg,  Prince  Adolf  of  Anhalt,  received  letters  from  him 
at  this  time  attesting  his  zeal  for  the  "  spiritual  life  and  doc- 
trine,"2 and  that  Luther's  opponent,  Cochlseus,  from  informa- 
tion received  from  Luther's  brethren,  gives  him  credit  for  the 
careful  observance  of  the  Rule  in  the  matter  of  spiritual  exercises 
and  studies  during  his  first  years  as  a  monk. 3  The  notable  change 
in  Luther's  outward  mode  of  life  took  place  only  after  his  return 
from  Rome  when  he  abandoned  the  cause  of  the  Observantine 
party. 

Spalatin  commenced  his  studies  at  Erfurt  in  1498  and  con- 
tinued them  from  1502  at  Wittenberg  ;  thence,  on  their  termina- 
tion, he  returned  to  Erfurt  in  order  to  take  up  the  position  of 

1  Agricola's  Sermon,  p.  90. 

2  Cp.  N.  Paulus,  "  Hist.  Jahrb.,"  1903,  p.  73,  where  Dungersheim 
is  quoted  :  "  As  I  have  heard  more  than  once  from  the  lips  of  the  said 
Lord  Adolphus." 

3  "  Acta  et  scripta  Lutheri,"  p.  1. 


UNTRUE   TALES  287 

tutor  at  a  mansion,  which  he  soon  quitted  to  become  (1505-1508) 
spiritual  preceptor  in  the  neighbouring  convent  of  Georgenthal. 
Thus  the  date  of  his  first  stay  at  Erfurt  was  too  early  for  him, 
while  himself  a  student,  to  have  met  Luther  as  a  monk,  seeing 
that  the  latter  only  entered  the  monastery  in  1505.  His  second 
stay  presents  this  further  difficulty,  that  it  is  not  likely  that 
Spalatin  lived  with  the  other  students  at  the  widow's  house,  but, 
first  in  a  wealthy  family,  and,  later,  either  in  or  near  the  convent. 
Further,  were  the  other  two  youths  hailing  from  Spalt  then  at 
Erfurt  ?  A  certain  Johannes  Schlaginhaufen  from  Spalt  was 
there  in  1518  and  is  also  mentioned  as  being  at  the  University 
in  1520.  He  is,  perhaps,  the  same  as  the  compiler  of  the  Table- 
Talk  edited  by  Wilhelm  Preger,1  but,  if  so,  he  was  not  a  fellow- 
student  of  Luther's  at  Erfurt.  No  other  similar  name  appears 
in  the  register.  The  name  of  the  second,  George  Ferber,  cannot 
be  found  at  all  in  the  Erfurt  University  register,  nor  any  Farber, 
Fiirber  or  Tinctoris  even  with  another  Christian  name.  Thus 
there  are  difficulties  on  every  side. 

Then  again,  the  familiar  visits  to  the  girl,  as  though  there  had 
been  no  Rule  which  debarred  the  young  religious  from  such 
intercourse.  We  know  that  even  in  1516  the  Humanist  Mutian 
had  great  trouble  in  obtaining  permission  for  an  Augustinian 
frequently  to  visit  his  house  at  Erfurt,  even  accompanied  by 
another  Friar.2 

Hence,  however  deserving  of  credit  Agricola's  other  accounts 
of  Spalatin  may  be,  we  cannot  accept  his  story  of  Luther's 
doings  as  a  monk.  Nor  is  this  the  only  statement  concerning 
the  earlier  history  of  the  Reformation  in  which  Agricola  has 
gone  astray.  The  story  may  have  grown  up  at  Spalt  owing  to 
some  misunderstanding  of  something  said  by  George  Ferber, 
the  Dean  of  Spalt,  who  was  supposed  to  have  been  a  fellow- 
student  of  Luther's  at  Erfurt,  and  who  may  possibly  have 
related  tales  of  the  young  Augustinian's  early  imprudence.  It  is 
however  possible,  in  fact  not  at  all  unlikely,  that,  in  1501,  when 
Luther  was  still  a  secular  student  at  Erfurt,  and  according  to 
the  above,  a  contemporary  of  Spalatin's,  he  took  a  passing  fancy 
to  a  girl  in  the  house  where  Spalatin  boarded,  and  that,  during 
the  controversies  which  accompanied  the  Reformation,  a  rumour 
of  this  was  magnified  into  the  tale  that,  as  a  monk,  Luther  had 
courted  a  girl,  had  been  desirous  of  marrying,  and,  for  this 
reason,  had  quitted  both  his  Order  and  the  Church. 

1  "Tischreden  Luthers  1531-1532"  (1888).  Cp.  the  Introduction 
by  the  editor,  p.  vi.  Preger  does  not  appear  to  have  heard  of  Wolf- 
gang Agricola's  "  Hans  Schlahinhauffen."  Cp.  the  Erfurt  register, 
in  Weissenborn,  "  Akten  der  Erfurter  Universitat,"  1-2  ;  also  the 
Index  published  in  1899.  The  particulars  concerning  Johannes  Schlagin- 
haufen are  contained  in  the  second  vol.,  pp.  301-316.  Spalatin  is  there 
entered  (p.  207)  in  1498  as  :    "  Georgius  Burchardi  de  Sula  superiori." 

2  Mutian  to  Johann  Lang,  December  6,  1516,  Kolde,  "  Analecta 
Lutherana,"  p.  5  f. 


288         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

Luther's  stay  as  a  boy  in  Gotta' s  house  at  Eisenach  no  ground  for 
a  charge  of  immorality. 

Entirely  unfounded  suspicions  have  been  raised  concerning 
Luther's  residence  in  Frau  Cotta's  house  at  Eisenach  (vol.  i., 
p.  5).  There  is  not  the  slightest  justification  for  thinking  that 
Frau  Cotta — who  has  erroneously  been  described  as  a  young 
widow — acted  from  base  motives  in  thus  receiving  the  youth, 
nor  for  the  tale  of  his  charming  her  by  his  playing  on  the  lute  or 
the  flute. 

Cuntz  (Conrad)  Cotta,  the  husband  of  Ursula  Cotta  (her 
maiden-name  was  Schalbe),  was  still  living  when  Luther,  at  the 
age  of  fifteen  or  sixteen,  was  so  kindly  received  into  the  house 
and  thus  dispensed  from  supplementing  his  small  resources  by 
singing  in  the  streets.  Conrad's  name  appears  in  1505  in  the 
Eisenach  registers  as  one  of  the  parish  representatives.  His  wife 
Ursula,  witness  her  tombstone,  died  in  151 1.1  How  old  she  was 
at  the  time  she  became  acquainted  with  Luther  cannot  be 
determined,  but  quite  possibly,  she,  like  her  husband,  was  no 
longer  young.  The  date  of  death  of  two  supposed  sons  of  hers 
would  certainly  tend  to  show  that  she  was  then  still  young,  but 
these  two  Cottas,  as  has  been  proved,  were  not  her  sons,  though 
they  may  have  been  nephews.  Conrad  Cotta  is  not  known  to 
have  had  any  children,  and  the  fact  of  his  being  childless  would 
explain  all  the  more  readily  Luther's  reception  into  his  household. 

Mathesius,  in  his  frequently  quoted  historical  sermons  on 
Luther,2  says,  that  "  a  pious  matron  "  admitted  the  poor  scholar 
to  her  table.  He  is  referring  to  Ursula  Cotta.  The  word  matron 
which  he  makes  use  of  seems  intended  to  denote  rather  respecta- 
bility than  advanced  age.  That  he  should  mention  only  the  wife 
is  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  she,  rather  than  her  husband, 
was  Luther's  benefactress.  He  seems  to  have  had  the  account 
from  Luther  himself,  who,  it  would  appear,  told  him  the  story 
together  with  the  edifying  cause  of  his  reception.  This  Mathesius 
relates  in  a  way  which  excludes  rather  than  suggests  any  thought 
of  dishonourable  motives.  He  says  that  the  matron  conceived  a 
"  yearning  attraction  for  the  boy  on  account  of  his  singing  and 
his  earnest  prayer  in  the  churches."  The  expression  "  yearning 
attraction,"  which  sounds  somewhat  strange  to  us,  was  not  un- 
usual then  and  comes  naturally  to  a  preacher  rather  inclined  to  be 
sentimental,  as  was  Mathesius.  Ratzeberger  the  physician,  a 
friend  of  Luther's  to  whom  the  latter  may  also  have  spoken  of 
his  stay  at  Eisenach,  merely  says,  that  the  scholar  "  found  board 
and  lodging  at  Cuntz  Cotta's."  Thus  he  credits  the  husband 
with  the  act  of  charity. 

Luther  could  not  well  have  played  the  flute  there,  seeing  that 
he  never  learned  to  play  that  instrument  ;  as  for  the  lute,  he 
became  proficient  on  it  only  during  his  academic  years  ;   nor  does 

1  For  all  the  proofs  bearing  on  the  matter  see  E.  Schneidewind,  "  Das 
Lutherhaus  in  Eisenach,"  1883. 

2  First  ed.,  fol.  3. 


UNTRUE   TALES  289 

any  source  allude  to  musical  entertainments  taking  place  in  the 
Cotta  household. 

Luther  relates  later  in  the  Table-Talk, *  that  he  had  learned  this 
saying  from  his  "  hostess  at  Eisenach,"  i.e.  Frau  Cotta  :  "  There 
is  nought  dearer  on  earth  than  the  love  of  woman  to  the  man 
who  can  win  it."  This,  however,  affords  no  ground  for  thinking 
evil.  The  saying  was  a  popular  one  in  general  use  and  may  quite 
naturally  refer  to  the  love  existing  between  husband  and  wife. 
It  is  another  question  whether  it  was  quite  seemly  on  Luther's 
part  to  quote  this  saying  as  he  did  in  his  Glosses  on  the  Bible, 
in  connection  with  the  fine  description  of  the  "  mulier  fortis  " 
(Proverbs  xxxi.  10  ff.),  so  distinguished  for  her  virtue. 

Did  Luther  describe  the  lot  of  the  Hog  as  the  most  enviable  Goal 

of  Happiness  ? 

In  view  of  the  fear  of  death  which  he  had  often  experienced 
when  lying  on  the  bed  of  sickness,  Luther,  so  we  are  told,  came 
to  envy  the  lot  of  the  hog,  and  to  exclaim  :  "I  am  convinced  that 
anyone  who  has  felt  the  anguish  and  terror  of  death  would  rather 
be  a  pig  than  bear  it  for  ever  and  ever."  That  such  are  his  words 
is  perfectly  true,  and  he  even  goes  on  to  give  a  graphic  description 
of  the  happy  and  comfortable  life  a  pig  leads  until  it  comes  under 
the  hand  of  the  butcher,  all  due  to  its  unacquaintance  with 
death.2 

It  should  first  be  noted  that,  throughout  the  work  in  question, 
"  Von  den  Jiiden  und  jren  Liigen,"  Luther  is  busy  with  the  Jews. 
He  compares  the  happiness  which,  according  to  him,  they  await 
from  their  Messias,  with  that  enjoyed  by  the  pig.3  In  his  cynical 
manner  he  concludes  that  the  happiness  of  the  pig  was  even  to  be 
preferred  to  Jewish  happiness,  for  the  Jews  would  not  be  "  secure 
for  a  single  hour  "  in  the  material  happiness  they  expected,  for 
they  would  be  oppressed  by  the  "  horrible  burden  and  plague  of 
all  men,  viz.  death,"  seeing  that  they  merely  look  for  a  temporal 
king  as  their  Messias,  who  shall  procure  them  riches,  mirth  and 
pleasure.  Thereupon  we  get  one  of  his  customary  outbursts  : 
"  Were  God  to  promise  me  no  other  Messias  than  him  for  whom 
the  Jews  hope,  I  would  very  much  rather  be  a  pig  than  a  man." 

Yet  he  proceeds  :  I,  however,  as  a  Christian,  have  a  better 
Messias,  "  so  that  I  have  no  reason  to  fear  death,  being  assured 
of  life  everlasting,"  etc.  Well  might  our  "  heart  jump  for  joy  and 
be  intoxicated  with  mirth."  "  We  give  thanks  to  the  Father  of 
all  Mercy.  ...  It  was  in  such  joy  as  this  that  the  Apostles  sang 
and  gave  praise  in  prison  amidst  all  their  misery,  and  even  young 
maidens,  like  Agatha  and  Lucy,"  etc.  But  the  wretched  Jews 
refused  to  acknowledge  this  Messias. 

How  then  can  one  infer  from  Luther's  words,  "  I  am  convinced 
that  anyone  who  has  felt  the  anguish  and  terror  of  death,"  etc., 
that  he  represented  the  lot  of  the  hog  as  the  supreme  goal  of 

1  Vol.  iv.,  xxii.  5. 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  32,  p.  261.  3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  32,  p.  260. 

III. — U 


290         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

Christians  in  general  and  himself  in  particular  ?  It  is  true  that 
he  magnifies  the  fear  of  death  which  naturally  must  oppress  the 
heart  of  every  believer,  and  for  the  moment  makes  no  account 
of  the  consolation  of  Christian  hope,  but  all  this  is  merely  with 
the  object  of  forcing  home  more  strongly  to  the  Jews  whom  he 
is  addressing,  what  he  had  just  said  :  "Of  what  use  would  all 
this  be  to  me  [viz.  the  earthly  happiness  which  you  look  for]  if  I 
could  not  be  sure  of  it  even  for  one  hour  ?  If  the  horrible  burden 
and  plague  of  all  men,  death,  still  presses  on  me,  from  which  I 
am  not  secure  for  one  instant,  but  go  in  fear  of  it,  of  hell  and  the 
wrath  of  God,  and  tremble  and  shiver  at  the  prospect,  and  this 
without  any  hope  of  its  coming  to  an  end,  but  continuing  for  all 
eternity  ?  "  His  closing  words  apply  to  unbelievers  who  are 
ignorant  of  the  salvation  which  is  in  Christ  :  "  It  is  better  to  be  a 
live  pig  than  a  man  who  is  everlastingly  dying."  The  passage 
therefore  does  not  convey  the  meaning  which  has  been  read 
into  it. 

We  may  here  glance  at  some  charges  in  which  his  moral 
character  is  involved,  brought  against  certain  doctrines  and 
sayings  of  Luther. 

Did  Luther  allow  as  valid  Marriage  between  Brother  and  Sister  ? 

The  statement  made  by  some  Catholics  that  he  did  can  be 
traced  back  to  a  misunderstanding  of  the  simple  word  "  dead." 
This  word  he  wrote  against  several  passages  of  a  memorandum 
of  Spalatin's  on  matrimonial  questions  submitted  by  the  Elector 
in  1528,  for  instance,  against  one  which  ran  :  "  Further,  brother 
and  sister  may  not  marry,  neither  may  a  man  take  his  brother's 
or  sister's  daughter  or  granddaughter.  And  similarly  it  is  for- 
bidden to  marry  one's  father's,  grandfather's,  mother's  or  grand- 
mother's sister."1  The  word  "dead"  here  appended  does  not 
mean  that  the  prohibition  has  ceased  to  hold,  but  is  equivalent 
to  "  delete,"  and  implies  that  the  passage  should  be  omitted  in 
print.  Luther  considered  it  unnecessary  or  undesirable  that  the 
impediments  in  question  should  be  mentioned  in  this  "  Instruc- 
tion "  ;  he  prefers  that  preachers  should  as  a  general  rule  simply 
insist  on  compliance  with  the  Laws  of  the  Empire. 

The  accompanying  letter  of  the  Elector,  in  which  he  requests 
Luther  to  read  through  the  memorandum,  anticipates  such  a 
recommendation  to  omit.  In  it  the  writer  asks  whether  "  it 
would  perhaps  be  better  to  leave  this  out  and  to  advise  the 
pastors  and  preachers  of  this  fact  in  the  Visitation,"2  since,  in 
any  case,  the  "Imperial  Code,"  in  which  everything  was  con- 
tained in  detail,  was  to  be  taken  as  the  groundwork.  Against 
many  clauses  of  the  Instruction  Luther  places  the  word  "  placet  "  ; 
a  "  non  placet  "  occurs  nowhere  ;  on  the  other  hand,  we  find 
frequently  "  omittatur,  dead,  all  this  dead  "  (i.e.  "  delete  ")  ; 
he  also  says  :   "  hoc  manebit,  hactenus  manebit  textus  "  (equivalent 

1  "  Brief  wechsel,"  ed.  Enders,  6,  p.  186. 

2  January  3,  1528,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  6,  p.  180. 


UNTRUE  TALES  291 

to  "  stet  ").  If  "  dead  "  had  meant  the  same  as  "  this  impedi- 
ment no  longer  holds,"  then  Luther  would  here  have  removed 
the  impediment  even  between  father  and  daughter,  mother  and 
son,  seeing  that  he  writes  "  dead  "  also  against  the  preceding 
clause,  which  runs  :  "  Firstly,  the  marriage  of  persons  related  in 
the  ascending  and  descending  line  is  prohibited  throughout  and 
in  infinitum." 

Did  Luther  Recommend  People  to  Pray  for  Many  Wives 
and  Few  Children  ? 

This  charge,  too,  belongs  to  the  old  armoury  of  well-worn 
weapons  beloved  of  controversialists.  The  answer  to  the 
question  may  possibly  afford  material  of  some  interest  to  the 
historian  and  man  of  letters. 

Down  to  quite  recent  times  it  was  not  unusual  to  find  in 
Catholic  works  a  story  of  a  poem,  said  to  have  been  by  Luther, 
found  in  a  MS.  Bible  in  the  Vatican  Library,  in  which  Luther 
prayed  that  God  in  His  Goodness  would  bestow  "  many  wives 
and  few  children."  At  the  present  day  no  MS.  Bible  containing 
a  poem  by  Luther,  or  any  similar  German  verses,  exists  in  the 
Vatican  Library.  What  is  meant,  however,  is  a  German  transla- 
tion of  Holy  Scripture,  in  five  volumes,  dating  from  the  fifteenth 
century,  which  was  formerly  kept  in  the  Vatican  and  now 
belongs  to  the  Heidelberg  University  library.  It  is  one  of  those 
Heidelberg  MSS.  which  were  brought  to  Rome  in  1623  and 
again  wandered  back  to  their  old  quarters  in  1816  (Palat.  German, 
n.  19-23).  The  "poem"  in  question  is  at  the  end  of  vol.  ii. 
(cod.  20).  Of  it,  as  given  by  Bartsch  ("  Die  altdeutschen  Hand- 
schriften  der  Universitat  Heidelberg  ")  and  Wilken  ("  Heidel- 
berger  Biichersammlung  "J,1  we  append  a  rough  translation  : 

God  Almighty,  Thou  art  good, 
Give  us  coat  and  mantle  and  hood, 

Many  a  cow  and  many  a  ewe, 
Plenty  of  wives  and  children  few. 

Explicit  :  A  small  wage 
Makes  the  year  to  seem  an  age. 

The  "  poem  "  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  Luther.  It  is  a 
product  of  the  Middle  Ages,  met  with  under  various  forms.  The 
"  Explicit,"  too,  is  older  than  Luther  and  presumably  was 
added  by  the  copyist  of  the  volume.  In  the  seventeenth  century 
the  opinion  seems  to  have  gained  ground  that  Luther  was  the 
author,  though  no  Roman  scholar  can  be  invoked  as  having 
said  so.  Of  the  MS.  Montfaucon  merely  says  :  "A  very  old 
German  Bible  is  worthy  of  notice  "  ;  Luther's  name  he  does 
not  mention.2 

1  Cp.  W.  Walther,  "  Deutsche  Bibelubersetzungen,"  1889  fi\,  p.  403  f . 

2  "  Diarium  italicum,"  1708,  p.  278. 


292         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

One  witness  for  the  ascription  of  its  authorship  to  Luther  was 
Max.  Misson,  who,  in  his  "  Nouveau  voyage  dTtalie,"1  gives  the 
"  poem  "  very  inaccurately  and  states  that  a  Bible  was  shown 
him  at  the  Vatican  in  which  Luther  was  said  to  have  written  it, 
and  that  the  writing  was  the  same  as  that  of  the  rest  of  the 
volume.  He  adds,  however,  that  it  was  hardly  credible  that 
Luther  should  have  written  such  things  in  a  Bible. 

Later,  Christian  Juncker,  a  Protestant,  relates  the  same  thing 
in  his  "  Life  of  Luther,"  published  in  1699,  but  likewise  expresses 
a  doubt.  He  quotes  the  discourse  on  Travels  in  Italy  by  Johann 
Fabricius,  the  theologian  of  Helmstedt,  where  the  version  of  the 
verses  differs  from  that  given  by  Misson. 2 

According  to  a  record  of  a  journey  to  Rome  undertaken  in 
1693,  given  by  Johafm  Friedrich  von  Wolff ramsdorf,  he,  too, 
was  shown  a  MS.  Bible  alleged  to  have  been  written  by  Luther, 
doubtless  that  mentioned  above.3 

As  a  matter  of  fact  the  "  poem  "  in  question  was  a  popular 
mediaeval  one,  frequently  met  with  in  manuscripts,  sometimes 
in  quite  inoffensive  forms.  At  any  rate,  the  jingling  rhymes 
(in  the  German  original  :  Giite,  Hiite,  Kinder,  Kinder)  are  the 
persistent  feature.  According  to  Bartsch  it  occurs  in  the 
Zimmern  Chronik4  in  a  version  attributed  to  Count  Hans  Werden- 
berg  (1268),  which,  while  retaining  the  same  rhymes  (in  the 
German),  inverts  the  meaning.    Here  the  prayer  is  for  : 

Potent  stallions,  portly  oxen, 
Buxom  women,  plenty  children. 

From  a  MS.,  "  Gesta  Romanorum,"  of  1476,  J.  L.  Hocker 
("  Bibliotheca  Heilbronnensis  "5),  quotes  a  similar  but  shorter 
verse.6  A  different  rendering  of  the  poem  was  entered  into  a 
Diary  in  1596  by  Wolff  von  Stechau.7 

Certain  Protestant  writers  of  the  present  day,  not  content  with 
"  saving  Luther's  honour  "  by  emphasising  the  fact  that  the 
above  verses  of  the  Heidelberg  MS.  are  not  his,  proceed  to 
insinuate  that  they  were  really  "  aimed  at  the  clergy  "  ;    the 

1  Tom.  24,  La  Haye,  1702,  p.  134. 

2  "  Vita  Lutheri,  nummis  illustrata,"  Francof.  et  Lipsiae,  1699, 
pp.  225,  227.  Joh.  Fabricius,  "  Amoenitates  theologicae,"  Helmestadii, 
1699,  p.  676,  in  the  Notes  to  his  "  Oratio  de  utilitate  itineris  Italiae." 
Fabricius  says  the  verses,  though  usually  attributed  to  Luther,  were 
not  in  his  handwriting,  nor  could  Luther  well  have  composed  anything 
so  clumsy.  Further,  the  sub-librarian  at  Rome  had  assured  him  that 
in  the  Vatican  there  was  only  one  quarto  book  written  by  Luther. 

3  Cp.  Paul  Haake,  "  Johann  Fr.  v.  WolfTramsdorf  "  ("  N.  Archiv 
fur  sachsische  Gesch.,"  22,  1901,  pp.  69  f.,  76  (the  text  not  quoted). 

4  Vol.  I2,  p.  252.  6  Noribergae,  1731,  p.  124. 

6  Cp.  "  Anzeiger  fur  Kunde  der  deutschen  Vorzeit,"  1878,  p.  16 
("  Ein  schon  Frawe  on  Kinder  "). 

7  Ibid.,  1879,  p.  296  ("  Ein  schon  Weib,  viel  Rinder  wentzig 
Kinder").  Cp.  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  682.  Walther,  "  Bibeliiber- 
setzungen,"  points  out  concerning  the  origin  of  the  story,  that,  owing 
to  people  being  unaware  of  the  mediaeval  translations  of  the  Bible,  "  a 
German  Bible  immediately  suggested  the  name  of  Luther." 


UNTRUE  TALES  293 

"  hoods  "  and  "  hats  "  of  which  they  speak  were  forsooth  the 
monks'  and  the  cardinals',  and  the  rhymester  was  all  the  time 
envying  the  gay  life  of  the  clergy  ;  thus  the  poem,  so  we  are  told, 
throws  a  "  lurid  light  on  the  esteem  in  which  the  mediaeval  monks 
and  clergy  were  held  by  the  laity  committed  to  their  care." — 
Yet  the  verses  contain  no  reference  whatever  to  ecclesiastics. 
"  Hoods  "  were  part  of  the  layman's  dress  and  presumably 
"  hats,"  too.  And  after  all,  would  it  have  been  so  very  wicked 
even  for  a  pious  layman  to  wish  to  share  in  the  good  things 
possessed  by  the  clergy  ?  If  satires  on  the  mediaeval  clergy  are 
sought  for,  sufficient  are  to  be  found  without  including  this 
poor  jingle. 

Did  Luther  include  Wives  in  the  "  Daily  Bread  "  of  the 
Our  Father? 

Controversial  writers  have  seen  fit  to  accuse  Luther  of  includ- 
ing wives  in  the  "  daily  bread  "  for  which  we  ask,  and,  in  support 
of  their  charge,  refer  to  his  explanation  of  the  fourth  request 
of  the  Our  Father.  In  point  of  fact  in  the  Smaller  Catechism 
the  following  is  his  teaching  concerning  this  petition  :  It  teaches 
us  to  ask  God  "  for  everything  required  for  the  sustenance  and 
needs  of  the  body,  such  as  food,  drink,  clothes,  shoes  and  house, 
a  farm,  fields,  cattle,  money,  goods,  a  pious  spouse,  pious  children 
and  servants,  and  good  masters,  etc.1  In  the  Larger  Catechism 
the  list  is  similar  :  Food  and  drink,  clothes,  a  house  and  farm, 
health  of  body,  grain  and  fruits,  a  pious  wife,  children  and 
servants,"  etc.2    With  all  this  surely  no  fault  can  be  found. 

Was  Luther  the  originator  of  the  proverb  :  "  Who  loves  not  woman, 
wine  and  song  remains  a  fool  his  whole  life  long  "  ? 

These  verses  are  found  neither  in  Luther's  own  writings  nor 
in  the  old  notes  and  written  traditions  concerning  him.  Joh. 
Heinrich  Voss  was  the  first  to  publish  them  in  the  "  Wandsbeker 
Bote  "  in  1775,  reprinting  them  in  his  Musenalmanach  (1777). 
When  he  was  charged  by  Senior  Herrenschmidt  with  having 
foisted  them  on  to  Luther,  he  admitted  that  he  was  unable  to 
give  any  account  of  their  origin.3  Several  proverbs  of  a  similar 
type,  dating  from  mediaeval  times,  have  been  cited. 

A  humorous  remark  of  Luther's  would  appear,  according 
to  Seidemann,  to  refer  to  some  earlier  proverb  linking  together 
women,  wine  and  song.  The  remark  in  question  is  contained  in 
the  MS.  collection  of  the  Table-Talk  preserved  at  Gotha  and 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  21,  p.  15.  2  Ibid.,  p.  120. 

3  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  1903,  p.  681,  n.  498.     "  Possibly  he  merely 
translated  the  old  Italian  rhyming  proverb  : 

1  Chi  non  ama  il  vino,  la  donna  e  il  canto 
Un  pazzo  egli  sara  e  mai  un  santo,' 

and,  being  himself  an  outspoken  Voltairean,  suppressed  the  '  santo.'  " 
H.  Bohmer,  "  Luther  im  Lichte  der  neueren  Forschung,"  p.  84 ;  2nd  ed., 
p.  117  f. 


294  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

known  as  "  Serotina,"  now  available  in  the  work  of  E.  Kroker, 
published  in  1903.1  The  entire  passage  is  not  to  be  taken 
seriously  :  "  To-morrow  I  have  to  lecture  on  Noe's  drunkenness, 
so  to-night  I  shall  drink  deeply  so  as^to  be  able  to  speak  of  the 
naughty  thing  from  experience.  '  Not  at  all,'  said  Dr.  Cordatus, 
'  you  must  do  just  the  opposite.'  Thereupon  Luther  remarked  : 
'  Each  country  must  be  granted  its  own  special  fault.  The 
Bohemians  are  gluttons,  the  Wends  thieves,  the  Germans  hard 
drinkers  ;  for,  my  dear  Cordatus,  in  what  else  does  a  German 
excel  than  '  ebrietate,  praesertim  talem,  qui  non  diligit  musicam 
et  mulieres  '  ?  "  This  saying  of  Luther's,  which  was  noted  down 
by  Lauterbach  and  Weller,  belongs  to  the  year  1536. 

7.   The  "Good  Drink" 

Among  the  imputations  against  Luther's  private  life  most 
common  among  early  controversial  writers  was  that  of 
being  an  habitual  drunkard. 

On  the  other  hand,  many  of  Luther's  Protestant  sup- 
porters down  to  our  own  day  have  been  at  pains  to  defend 
him  against  any  charge  of  intemperance.  Even  scholarly 
modern  biographers  of  Luther  pass  over  this  point  in  the 
most  tactful  silence,  or  with  just  the  merest  allusion,  though 
they  delight  to  dwell  on  his  "  natural  enjoyment  of  life." 

The  following  pages  may  help  to  show  the  failings  of  both 

methods,  of  that  pursued  by  Luther's  opponents,  with  their 

frequently  quite  unjustifiable  exaggerations,  and  of  that  of 

his  defenders  with  their  refusal  to  discuss  even  the  really 

existing  grounds  for  complaint.2     To  begin  with,  Luther's 

enemies  must  resign  themselves  to  abandon  some  of  the 

proofs   formerly   adduced   for   his   excessive   addiction   to 

drink. 

Unsatisfactory  Witnesses. 

Luther's  saying  :  "  If  I  have  a  can  of  beer,  I  want  the  beer- 
barrel  as  well,"3  has  often  been  cited  against  him,  the  fact  being 
overlooked,  that  he  only  made  use  of  this  expression  in  order  to 

1  "  Luther  Tischreden  Mathesische  Sammlung,"  p.  376,  with  other 
passages  under  the  heading  :   Lauterbach  and  Weller. 

2  Under  the  heading  "  Der  '  gute  Trunk  '  in  den  Lutheranklagen  " 
the  present  writer  published  an  article  in  the  "  Hist.  Jahrb.,"  26,  1905, 
p.  479  ff.,  which,  under  a  revised  form,  is  given  anew  in  the  following 
pages.  In  view  of  the  strong  verdicts  frequently  pronounced  upon 
Luther's  love  of  drink,  we  may  point  out  that  P.  Albert  Weiss,  O.P., 
in  his  "  Lutherpsychologie  "  (Mainz,  1906,  p.  185  f.  ;  2nd  ed.,  p.  274), 
goes  so  far  as  to  declare  he  was  inclined  to  "  tone  down  this  or  that 
opinion  expressed  by  Grisar,"  but  that  he  was  thankful  that  he  had 
"  treated  the  subject  with  such  moderation." 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  57,  p.  348,  "  Tischreden." 


THE   GOOD   DRINK  295 

illustrate,  by  a  very  common  example,  the  idea  expressed  in  the 
heading  of  the  chapter  in  which  it  occurs,  viz.  that  "  No  one  is 
ever  satisfied."  Everyone,  he  continues,  desires  to  go  one  step 
higher,  everyone  wants  to  attain  to  something  more,  and,  then, 
with  other  examples,  he  gives  that  mentioned  above,  where,  for 
"I,"  we  might  equally  well  substitute  "  we,"  which  indeed  we 
find  employed  elsewhere  in  this  same  connection  :  "If  we  have 
one  Gulden,  we  want  a  hundred." 

Another  passage,  alleged,  strange  to  say,  by  older  writers, 
proves  nothing  :  "  We  eat  ourselves  to  death,  and  drink  our- 
selves to  death  ;  we  eat  and  drink  ourselves  into  poverty  and 
down  to  hell,"  Here  Luther  is  merely  speaking  against  the  habit 
of  drinking  which  had  become  so  prevalent,  and  dominated  some 
to  such  an  extent  that  death  and  hell  were  the  lamentable 
consequences  to  be  feared.    (See  below,  p.  308  f.) 

Luther,  wishing  to  drive  a  point  home,  says  that  he  is  not 
"drunk,"1  but  is  writing  "in  the  morning  hours."2  Must  we 
infer,  then,  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of  writing  when  drunk,  or 
that  in  the  afternoon  he  was  not  usually  sober  ?  Must  he  be 
considered  drunk  whenever  he  does  not  state  plainly  that  he  is 
sober  ?  The  truth  is  that  such  expressions  were  merely  his  way 
of  speaking.  In  the  important  passage  here  under  consideration 
he  writes  :  "  Possibly  it  may  be  asserted  later  that  I  did  not 
sufficiently  weigh  what  I  say  here  against  those  who  deny  the 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  ;  but  I  am  not  drunk  or 
giddy  ;  I  know  what  I  am  saying  and  what  it  will  mean  to  me 
on  Judgment  Day  and  at  the  second  coming  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."3  Thus  he  is  speaking  most  seriously  and  uses  this 
curious  verbal  artifice  simply  to  emphasise  his  earnestness. 
Were  additional  proof  necessary  it  might  be  found  in  other 
passages  ;  for  instance  :  "  Christ  was  not  drunk  when  He  said 
this,"  viz.  the  Eucharistic  words  of  consecration,  the  literal 
meaning  of  which  Luther  is  upholding  against  the  Strasburg 
Sacramentarians. 4 

For  the  purpose  of  discrediting  Luther  an  old  opponent  wrote  : 
"  The  part  that  eating  and  drinking  play  in  the  life  of  the 
Reformer  is  evident  from  his  letters  to  his  Katey,"  and  then 
went  on  to  refer  to  the  perfectly  innocent  passage  where  Luther 
says,  that  he  preferred  the  beer  and  wine  he  was  used  to  at  home 
to  what  he  was  having  at  Dessau,  whence  he  wrote.  The  rest  of 
the  letter  has  also  been  taken  in  an  unnecessarily  tragic  sense  : 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  26,  p.  500  ;  Erl.  ed.,  30,  p.  363,  in  the 
"  Vom  Abendmal  Christi  Bekentnis."  Cp.  also  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed., 
262,  p.  189. 

2  Letter  to  Wenceslaus  Link,  March  19,  1522,  "  Brief wechsel,"  3, 
p.  317.    The  reference  is,  of  course,  to  the  words  of  Peter,  Acts  ii.  13-15. 

3  See  n.   1. 

4  Kolde,  "  Analecta  Lutherana,"  p.  71,  in  the  "  Relatio  Gregorii 
Caselii  "  of  November  29,  1525.  Cp.  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  12,  p.  234  ; 
Erl.  ed.,  29,  p.  20,  where  he  says  that  God  was  not  drunk  when  He 
spoke  the  words  ;  also  ibid.,  8,  p.  507  =  28,  p.  63  :  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke  and  Paul  were  not  drunk  when  they  wrote  certain  things. 


296         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

"  Yesterday  I  had  some  poor  stuff  to  drink  so  that  I  had  to 
begin  singing  :  '  If  I  can't  drink  deep  then  I  am  sad,  for  a  good 
deep  drink  ever  makes  me  so  glad.'  "  It  is  quite  unnecessary  to 
take  this  as  a  song  sung  by  a  "  tipsy  man  "  ;  it  is  simply  a  jesting 
reference  to  a  popular  ditty  which  quite  possibly  he  had  actually 
struck  up  to  get  rid  of  his  annoyance  at  the  quality  of  the  liquor. 
'  You  would  do  well,"  he  continues  in  the  same  jocular  vein, 
"  to  send  me  over  the  whole  cellar  full  of  my  usual  wine,  and  a 
bottle  of  your  beer  as  often  as  you  can,  else  I  shall  not  turn 
up  any  more  for  the  new  brew."1 

No  one  who  is  familiar  with  his  homely  mode  of  speech  will 
take  offence  at  his  calling  himself  on  one  occasion  the  "  corpulent 
Doctor,"  and  in  any  case  this  involves  neither  gluttony  nor 
drunkenness.  Moreover,  the  words  occur  in  a  serious  connection, 
for  we  shall  hear  it  from  him  during  the  last  days  of  his  life  : 
"  When  I  return  again  to  Wittenberg  I  shall  lay  myself  in  my 
coffin  and  give  the  worms  a  corpulent  doctor  to  feast  on,"2 
referring,  of  course,  to  his  natural  stoutness.  Offence  has  also 
been  taken  at  a  sentence  met  with  in  Luther's  Table-Talk,  where 
he  says  of  his  contemporaries  of  fifty  years  before  :  "  How  thin 
they  [i.e.  their  ranks]  have  become  ''  ;  from  which  it  was  inferred 
that  he  wished  them  a  luxurious  life  and  corpulence,  and  that  he 
"  regarded  pot  bellies  as  an  ornament  and  a  thing  to  be  desired." 
From  its  context,  however,  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  thin  "  is 
clear.  What  Luther  means  is  :  How  few  of  them  remain  in  the 
land  of  the  living. 

But  does  not  Luther  in  a  letter  of  his  let  fall  a  remark  scarcely 
beseeming  one  in  his  position,  viz.  that  he  would  like  to  be  more 
frequently  in  the  company  of  those  "  good  fellows,  the  students," 
"  the  beer  is  good,  the  parlour-maid  pretty,  the  lads  friendly 
(innig)  "  ?3  Such  is  one  of  the  statements  brought  forward 
against  him  to  show  his  inordinate  love  of  drink.  Yet,  when 
examined,  the  letter  is  found  to  say  nothing  of  any  yearning  of 
Luther's  to  join  in  the  drinking-bouts  of  the  students  or  of  any 
interest  of  his  in  the  maid.  "  Two  honest  students  "  had  been 
recommended  to  Luther,  and  the  letter  informs  its  addressee, 
the  Mansfeld  Chancellor  Miiller  at  Eisleben,  of  the  rumour  that 
"  too  much  was  being  consumed  without  any  necessity  by  the 
pair  "  ;  the  Chancellor  was  to  inform  the  Count  of  Mansfeld  of  the 
fact  in  order  that  he  (whose  proteges  they  may  have  been) 
"  might  keep  an  eye  on  them."  Then  come  the  words  :  "  What 
harm  would  friendly  supervision  do  ?  The  beer  is  good,  the 
parlour-maid  pretty  and  the  lads  young  ('  jung  '  not  *  innig  ')  ; 
the  students  really  behave  very  well,  and  my  only  regret  is  that, 

1  Letter  of  July  29,  1534,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  55,  p.  61  ("  Brief- 
wechsel,"  10,  p.  66). 

2  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  61,  p.  437  ("  Tischreden  ").  Cp.  "  Ratze- 
bergers  Handschriftl.  Gesch.,"  ed.  Neudecker,  p.  131,  and  Jonas's 
obituary  sermon  on  Luther  in  Walch's  ed.  of  Luther's  works,  21, 
Anhang,  p.  373*. 

3  To  Caspar  Miiller,  March  18,  1535,  "  Brief wechsel,"  10,  p.  137. 


THE   GOOD   DRINK  297 

owing  to  ray  weak  health,  I  am  unable  to  be  oftener  with  them." 
This  letter  surely  does  Luther  credit.  It  testifies  to  his  solicitude 
for  the  two  youths  committed  to  his  care  ;  seeing  they  are  still 
"  good  and  pious,"  he  is  anxious  to  preserve  them  from  in- 
temperance and  other  dangers,  and  regrets  that,  owing  to  his 
poor  state  of  health,  he  is  unable  to  have  the  pleasure  of  visiting 
these  young  fellows  more  often. 

We  must  also  caution  our  readers  against  an  alleged  quotation 
from  Luther's  contemporary,  Simon  Lemnius.  Lemnius  is 
reported  to  have  said  :  "  His  excessive  indulgence  in  wine  and 
beer  made  Luther  at  times  so  ill  that  he  quite  expected  to  die." 
No  such  statement  occurs  in  the  works  of  Lemnius.  What  this 
writer  actually  did  say  of  Luther  on  the  score  of  drunkenness 
will  be  given  later.  The  above  words  are  a  modern  invention, 
though  one  author,  strange  to  say,  actually  tacked  them  on 
to  the  authentic  passage  in  Lemnius  as  though  they  had  belonged 
to  the  latter. 

Again,  it  has  been  said  that  excessive  indulgence  in  some 
Malvasian  wine  was,  on  Luther's  own  admission,  the  cause  of  a 
malady  which  troubled  him  for  a  considerable  time  in  1529. 
Luther's  letter  in  question  speaks,  however,  of  a  "  severe  and 
almost  fatal  catarrh,"  which  lasted  for  a  long  time  and  almost 
deprived  him  of  his  voice  ;  others,  too,  says  Luther,  had  suffered 
from  the  catarrh  (no  great  wronder  in  the  month  of  March  or 
April),  but  not  to  the  same  extent  as  he.  He  had  imprudently 
aggravated  the  trouble  possibly  by  preaching  too  energetically 
or — and  here  comes  the  incriminating  passage — "  by  drinking 
some  adulterated  Malvasian  to  the  health  of  Amsdorf."  Such 
were  his  words  to  his  confidential  friend  Jonas.  The  fact  is  that 
a  wine  so  expensive  as  Malvasian  was  then  very  liable  to  being 
adulterated,  the  demand  far  exceeding  the  supply  of  this  beverage, 
which  was  always  expected  to  figure  on  the  table  on  great 
occasions.  At  any  rate,  there  is  no  mention  here  of  Luther's 
illness  having  arisen  from  continuous  and  excessive  indulgence 
in  wine.  At  the  conclusion  of  this  chapter  we  shall  have  to 
consider  a  similar  passage. 

In  the  above  we  have  examined  about  a  dozen  witnesses,  whose 
testimony  has  been  shown  quite  valueless  to  prove  Luther's 
alleged  devotion  to  drink. 

The  conclusions  which  have  been  drawn  from  the  character 
of  certain  of  Luther's  writings  or  utterances  are  also  worthless. 
It  has  been  affirmed  that  his  "  Wider  das  Bapstum  vom  Teuffel 
gestifft  "  could  only  have  been  written  "  under  the  excitement 
produced  by  drink,"  and  that  many  of  his  sayings,  such  as  his 
exhortation  to  "  pray  for  Our  Lord  God,"  could  have  been 
uttered  "  only  by  a  drunken  man." 

Yet  his  incredible  hatred  sufficed  of  itself  to  explain  the  frenzy 
of  his  utterances,  nor  must  we  forget  that  some  of  his  expressions, 
out  of  place  though  they  may  seem,  were  chosen  as  best  fitted 
to  appeal  to  the  populace.  "  Pray  for  Our  Lord  God,"  inter- 
preted in  the  light  of  other  similar  expresions  used  by  him,  means: 
Pray  for  the  interests  of  our  Lord  God  and  of  the  new  Evangel. 


298         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

Other  Witnesses,  Friendly  and  Hostile. 

Before  proceeding  to  scrutinise  in  detail  the  more  cogent 
testimonies,  we  may  remark  that  one  trait  in  Luther's 
character,  that  namely  which  caused  him  to  be  called  the 
44  merry  boon  companion,"  might  possibly  be  invoked  in 
support  of  the  charge  now  under  consideration. 

It  was  his  struggle  with  the  gloomy  moods  to  which  he 
was  so  prone  that  drove  Luther  into  cheerful  company  and 
to  seek  relief  in  congenial  conversation  and  in  liquor. 
That  he  was  not  over-scrupulous  concerning  indulgence  in 
the  latter  comfort  is  attested  by  his  own  words,  viz.  that  he 
was  too  fond  of  jests  and  convivial  gatherings  ("  iocis  aut 
conviviis  excedere  "),  and  that  the  world  had  some  grounds 
for  taking  offence  ('*  inveniat  in  me  quo  offendatur  et  cadat").1 
Yet  he  was  very  desirous  of  avoiding  such  accusations  on 
the  part  of  his  opponents,  though,  as  he  puts  it,  they 
"calumniate  even  what  is  best  and  most  inoffensive."2 
When  he  says  elsewhere  in  his  usual  gross  way  :  "  They 
spy  out  everything  that  concerns  me,  and  no  sooner  do  I 
pass  a  motion  than  they  smell  it  at  Rome,"3  this  exclamation 
was  called  forth  by  the  scandalous  excess  in  drinking  of 
which  a  member  of  his  family  was  habitually  guilty. 

Then,  again,  the  drinking  habits  of  the  Germans  of  those 
days  must  be  borne  in  mind.  A  man  had  to  be  a  very  hard 
drinker  to  gain  the  reputation  of  being  a  drunkard.  Instances 
will  be  given  later  showing  how  zealously  Luther  attacked 
the  vice  of  drunkenness  in  Germany.  At  that  time  a  man 
(even  though  a  theologian  or  other  person  much  exposed 
to  the  gaze  of  the  public)  was  free  to  imbibe  far  more 
than  was  good  for  him  without  remarks  being  made  or 
his  conduct  censured. 

Luther's  extraordinary  industry  and  the  astounding 
number  of  his  literary  productions  must  likewise  not  be 
lost  sight  of.  We  are  compelled  to  ask  ourselves  whether 
it  is  likely  that  the  man  who  wrote  works  so  numerous  and 
profound,  in  the  midst,  too,  of  the  many  other  cares  which 
pressed  on  him,  was  addicted  to  habitual  drunkenness. 
How  could  the  physical  capacity  for  undertaking  and 
executing  such  immense  labours,  and  the  energy  requisite 

1  "  Brief wechsel  Bugenhagens,"  ed.  O.  Vogt,  1888,  p.  64  fT. 

2  To  Spalatin,  August  15,  1521,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  3,  p.  218. 

3  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  141.     Cp.  vol.  ii.,  p.  133  f. 


THE  GOOD  DRINK  299 

for  the  long,  uninterrupted  religious  and  literary  struggle 
into  which  Luther  threw  himself,  be  found  in  one  who 
unceasingly  quenched  an  excessive  thirst  with  alcoholic 
drink  ?  Kawerau  has  sketched  Luther's  "  colossal  mental 
productivity  "  during  the  one  year  1529,  a  year  in  which 
he  was  not  engaged  in  any  of  his  accustomed  literary  feuds.1 
Works  published  during  that  year  cover,  in  the  Weimar 
edition,  287  pages,  in  imperial  octavo,  his  lectures  on 
Deuteronomy  247  pages  and  the  notes  of  his  sermons  (some, 
however,  in  duplicate)  824  pages.  In  addition  to  this  he 
was  at  work  on  his  German  translation  of  the  Old  Testament, 
completing  the  Pentateuch  and  making  a  beginning  with 
the  remaining  historical  books.  Besides  this  he  wrote  in 
that  year  countless  letters,  of  which  comparatively  few, 
viz.  112,  are  still  extant.  He  also  undertook  five  short 
journeys  lasting  together  about  a  fortnight. 

During  the  short  and  anxious  period,  amounting  to  173 
days,  which  he  spent,  in  1530,  in  the  Castle  of  Coburg  (it 
is  to  this  time  that  some  of  the  charges  of  excessive 
drinking  refer),  he  wrote  and  forwarded  to  the  press  various 
biblical  expositions  which  in  the  Erlangen  edition  occupy 
718  pages  in  small  octavo,  re-wrote  in  its  entirety  "Von  den 
Schlusseln,"  a  work  of  87  pages,  was  all  the  while  busy  with 
his  translation  of  Jeremias,  of  a  portion  of  Ezechiel  and  all 
the  minor  Prophets,  and  finally  wrote  at  least  the  128 
letters  and  memoranda  which  are  still  extant.2  Yet,  for 
whole  days  during  this  sojourn  in  the  Coburg,  he  was  plagued 
with  noises  in  the  head  and  giddiness,  results,  no  doubt,  of 
nervous  excitement. 

That  such  productivity  would  not  have  been  possible 
"  without  meditation  and  study  "3  is,  however,  not  quite 
true  in  his  case.  Luther  wrote  most  of  his  works  without 
reflection  and  without  any  real  study,  merely  jotting  down 
carelessly  whatever  his  lively  fancy  suggested. 

Thus  we  may  rightly  ask  whether  the  accusation  of 
habitual  participation  in  drinking-bouts  and  constant 
private  excess  is  compatible  with  the  work  he  produced. 

In  the  case  of  reports  of  an  unfavourable  nature  it,  is  of 
course  necessary  to  examine  their  origin  carefully  ;    this 

1  "  Etwas  vom  kranken  Luther  "  ("  Deutsch-evangel.  Blatter,"  29, 
1904),  p.  303  ff.,  p.  306. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  311  f.  3  Ibid.,  p.  306. 


300         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

unfortunately  is  not  always  done.  As  we  already  had 
occasion  to  remark  when  dealing  with  the  imputations 
against  his  moral  character,  it  makes  all  the  difference 
whether  the  witness  against  him  is  a  Catholic  opponent  or 
represents  the  New  Evangel.  Amongst  Catholics,  again,  we 
must  discriminate  between  foreigners,  who  were  ignorant  of 
German  customs  and  who  sometimes  wrote  merely  on 
hearsay,  and  Luther's  German  compatriots.  We  shall  not 
characterise  the  method  of  those  of  Luther's  defenders 
who  simply  refuse  to  listen  to  his  opponents  on  the  ground 
that,  one  and  all,  they  are  prejudiced. 

Wolfgang  Musculus  (Mauslin),  an  Evangelical  theologian,  in 
the  account  of  a  journey  in  May,  1536,  during  which  he  had 
visited  Luther,  gives  an  interesting  and  unbiassed  report  of 
what  he  saw  at  Wittenberg.1  On  May  29,  Luther  came,  bringing 
with  him  Melanchthon  and  Lucas  Cranach,  to  dine  as  Mauslin's 
guest  at  the  inn  where  he  was  staying.  There  all  had  their  share 
of  the  wine.  "  When  dinner  was  over,"  says  the  chronicler, 
"  we  all  went  to  the  house  of  Master  Lucas,  the  painter,  where 
we  had  another  drink.  .  .  .2  After  this  we  escorted  Luther 
home,  where  we  drank  in  true  Saxon  style.  He  was  marvellously 
cheerful  and  promised  everything  most  readily  "  (i.e.  probably 
all  that  Musculus  proposed  concerning  the  agreement  to  be 
come  to  with  the  Zwinglians,  of  whom  Musculus  was  one.  The 
allusion  to  the  "  Saxon  style  "  reminds  us  of  Count  Hoyer's 
reference  to  the  "  custom  at  Mansfeld  "  (vol.  ii.,  p.  131).  Luther's 
country  does  not  seem  to  have  been  noted  for  its  temperance. 

Melanchthon,  as  one  of  his  pupils  relates  in  the  "  Dicta  Melanch- 
thoniana,"  tells  how  on  a  certain  day  in  March,  1523 :  "  Before 
dinner  {'ante  coenam')"  Luther,  with  two  intimates,  Justus 
Jonas  and  Jacob  Probst,  the  Pastor  of  Bremen,  arrived  at 
Schweinitz  near  Wittenberg.  Here,  owing  to  indigestion, 
"  cruditas,"  Luther  was  sick  in  a  room.  In  order  to  remove  the 
bad  impression  made  on  the  servant  who  had  to  clean  the 
apartment,  Jonas  said  :  "  Do  not  be  surprised,  my  good  fellow, 
the  Doctor  does  this  sort  of  thing  every  day."  By  this  he 
certainly  did  not  mean,  as  some  have  thought,  that  Luther  was 
in  the  habit  of  being  sick  every  day  as  the  result  of  drink  ;  he 
was  merely  trying  to  shield  his  friend  in  an  embarrassing  situa- 
tion by  alleging  a  permanent  illness.  Pastor  Probst,  however, 
according  to  Melanchthon's  story,  betrayed  Jonas  by  exclaiming  : 
"  What  a  fine  excuse  !  "  Jonas  thereupon  seized  him  by  the 
throat  and  said  :  "  Hold  your  tongue  !  "  At  table  the  pastor 
was  anxious  to  return  to  the  matter,  but  Jonas  was  able  to  cut . 
him  short.     Melanchthon  concludes  the  story  with  a  touch  of 

1  The   "  Itinerarium,"   in  Kolde,    "  Analecta  Lutherana,"  p.   229. 
From  the  Bern  Archives. 

2  The  dots  are  Kolde's. 


THE  GOOD   DRINK  301 

sarcasm  :  "  Hoc  est  quando  'posterior a  intelliguntur  ex  prioribus." 
Was  the  sickness  in  this  case  due  to  previous  drinking  ? 

A  letter,  written  by  Luther  himself,  perhaps  will  help  to 
explain  the  matter.  On  the  eve  of  his  return  to  Wittenberg 
he  writes  from  Schweinitz  on  Oculi  Sunday,  March  8,  1523,  to 
his  friend  the  Court  Chaplain  Spalatin,  that  he  had  come  to 
Schweinitz,  where  the  Elector's  castle  stood,  in  order  to  celebrate 
with  the  father  the  baptism  of  the  son  of  a  convert  Jew  named 
Bernard.  "  We  drank  good,  pure  wine  from  the  Elector's 
cellar,"  he  says  ;  "  we  should  indeed  be  grand  Evangelicals  if 
we  feasted  to  the  same  extent  on  the  Evangel.  .  .  .  Please 
excuse  us  to  the  Prince  for  having  drunk  so  much  of  his  Griine- 
berger  wine  ('  quod  tantum  vini  Gorribergici  ligurierimus '). 
Jonas  and  his  wife  greet  you,  also  the  godfathers,  godmothers 
and  myself  ;  three  virgins  were  present,  certainly  Jonas,  for, 
as  he  has  no  child,  we  call  him  a  virgin."1  The  letter,  curiously 
disconnected  and  containing  such  strange  jests,  quite  gives  the 
impression  of  having  been  written  after  such  a  festive  gathering 
as  that  described  by  the  writer. 

In  connection  with  Melanchthon's  story  some  Protestants 
have  recently  urged  that,  in  1523,  Luther  was  subject  to  attacks 
of  "  sudden  indisposition  "  which  came  on  him  in  the  morning 
and  from  which  he  found  relief  in  vomiting,  and  that  the  above 
incident  is  explained  by  this  circumstance  ;  the  fact  that  he  was 
sick  "  before  the  meal  and  after  a  lengthy  drive  proves  that  we 
have  to  do  with  a  result  not  of  intemperance  but  of  nervous 
irritation."  Of  such  "  sudden  indispositions  "  arising  from 
nervousness  we,  however,  hear  nothing,  either  during  that  year 
or  for  long  after.  None  of  the  sources  mention  anything  of  the 
kind.  On  the  contrary,  at  Whitsun,  1523,  Luther  wrote  to 
Nicholas  Hausmann  that  he  felt  "fairly  well"  {"satis  bene 
valeo  ")  ;  that  he  was  of  a  nervous  temperament  is  of  course  true, 
but  that  the  morning  hours  were,  as  a  rule,  his  worst  we  only 
begin  to  learn  from  his  letters  in  1530  and  1532  ;  there,  moreover, 
he  does  not  mention  sickness,  but  merely  "  giddiness  and  the 
attacks  of  Satan,"  which  were  wont  to  come  on  him  before 
breakfast,  ("  prandium,"2  a  meal  taken  about  9  or  10  a.m.). 
Melanchthon's  story  speaks,  however,  not  of  the  morning  at  all, 
but  of  the  time  before  the  "  coena  "  (i.e.  the  principal  meal, 
taken  about  5  p.m.),  when  Luther  was  presumably  no  longer 
fasting. 

Still,  it  would  be  better  not  to  lay  too  much  stress  on  this 
isolated  particular  incident.3 

Next  in  the  series  of  statements  coming  from  preachers  of  the 
new  Evangel,  we  meet  that  of  Johann  Agricola,  who,  according 

1  "  Brief wechsel,"  4,  p.  96. 

2  Letter  of  February  27,  1532,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  9,  p.  155. 

3  A  passage  from  a  letter  of  Melanchthon's  to  Veit  Dietrich,  dated 
March  15,  1537  ("  Corp.  ref.,"  3,  p.  327),  deserves  consideration  : 
"  Secuta  est  hos  agones  (his  mental  struggles  or  temptations),  ut  fit, 
magna  debilitas  ;  accessit  etiam  cruditas,  quam  vigiliae,  vomitus  et 
caetera  incommoda  multa  auxerunt." 


302         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

to  Thiele,  in  the  recently  discovered  notes  of  his  (above,  p.  216), 
when  he  had  already  separated  from  Luther,  represents  him  as 
a  "  drunken  profligate,"  "  who  gave  the  rein  to  his  passions  and 
whom  only  his  wife's  sway  could  influence  for  good."  Agricola 
says  that  Luther  had  contemptuously  put  aside  certain  letters 
of  his,  but  "  at  last  read  them  one  morning  before  the  wine  had 
mounted  to  his  head  ('  mane,  nondum  vino  calef actus  ').  Then 
he  showed  himself  willing  to  take  me  into  favour  again  "  ;  this 
being  the  result  of  Katey's  intercession. 

After  this  we  have  the  testimony  of  the  Swiss  theologian,  Leo 
Judse,  who,  as  Kolde  tells  us,1  in  the  letter  to  Bucer  quoted 
above  (p.  277)  and  dated  April  24,  1534,  "reproaches  Luther 
with  drunkenness  and  all  manner  of  things,  and  declares  that 
such  a  bishop  he  would  not  tolerate  even  in  the  tiniest  diocese." 

Valentine  Ickelsamer,  in  1525,  voices  the  "  fanatics,"  whom 
Luther  was  attacking  so  vigorously,  in  his  complaint,  that  the 
latter  was  "  careless  and  heedless  amidst  all  our  needs,  and 
spent  his  time  in  utter  unconcern  with  the  beer-swillers  "  ;  before 
this  he  had  already  said  :  "I  am  well  acquainted  with  your 
behaviour,  having  been  for  a  while  a  student  at  Wittenberg  ;  I 
will,  however,  say  nothing  of  your  gold  finger-ring,  which  gives 
scandal  to  so  many  people,  or  of  the  pleasant  room  overlooking 
the  water  where  you  drink  and  make  merry  with  the  other 
doctors  and  gentlemen."2  Neither  Ickelsamer  nor  his  friends 
formulate  against  Luther  any  explicit  charge  of  startling  or 
habitual  excess.  His  daily  habits,  as  just  depicted,  seemed  to 
them  to  be  at  variance  with  his  claim  to  being  a  divinely  appointed 
preacher,  called  to  raise  mankind  to  higher  things,  but  this  was 
chiefly  on  account  of  their  own  peculiar  narrow  mysticism.  It 
was  from  the  same  standpoint  that,  wishing  to  absolve  himself 
from  the  charge  of  "  inciting  to  rebellion,"  Thomas  Miinzer,  in 
1524,  writes  in  his  "  Schutzrede  "3  against  the  "  witless,  wanton 
lump  of  flesh  at  Wittenberg,"  also  twitting  Luther  with  his 
"luxurious  living"  (vol.  ii.,  p.  131),  i.e.  the  daintiness  of  his 
food. 

With  regard  to  Simon  Lemnius,  it  will  suffice  to  refer  to  the 
passage  already  adduced  (p.  274)  :  "  Luther  boasts  of  being 
an  evangelical  bishop  ;  how  then  comes  it  that  he  lives  so  far 
from  temperately,  being  wont  to  surfeit  himself  with  food  and 
drink  ?  "  It  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  how  much  caution  must 
be  exercised  in  appealing  to  this  writer's  statements. 

Among  Catholic  critics  the  first  place  is  taken  by  the  theologian, 
Ambrosius  Catharinus,  an  Italian  who  lived  far  from  Germany. 
His  statement  regarding  Luther's  dancing  and  drinking  has 
already  been  given  (p.  276).    This,  together  with  many  other  of 

1  The  context  is  unfortunately  not  given  by  Kolde,  no  more  here 
than  in  the  case  of  Musculus.  A  copy  of  the  letter  is,  he  says,  found  in 
the  Baum  Thesaurus  of  the  Strasburg  University  Library. 

2  "  Clag  etlicher  Briider,"  etc.,  ed.  Enders  ("  Neudrucke  deutscher 
Literaturwerke,"  No.  118,  1893),  p.  48. 

*  "  Hochverursachte  Schutzrede,"  etc.,  ed.  Enders,  ibid.,  p.  18  ft. 


THE   GOOD  DRINK  303 

his  strictures1  on  Luther's  teaching  and  work,  were  collected  by 
CochlEeus.  Catharinus  was  present  at  the  Council  of  Trent  from 
1546-1547  and  such  reports  as  these  may  there  have  reached 
his  ears.  That  Luther  danced,  or  as  Catharinus  says,  even  led 
the  dances,  is  not  vouched  for  in  any  source.  Only  concerning 
Melanchthon  have  we  a  credible  report,  that  he  "  sometimes 
danced."  On  the  other  hand,  we  do  know  that  Luther  was 
frequently  present  at  balls,  weddings,  christenings  and  other 
such  occasions  when  food  and  drink  were  to  be  had  in  plenty.  So 
distinguished  and  pleasant  a  guest  was  naturally  much  in 
demand,  as  Luther  himself  tells  us  on  several  occasions. 

Luther's  letter  to  Spalatin,  on  January  14,  1524,  concerning 
the  (real  or  imaginary)  agent  sent  by  King  Ferdinand  to  enquire 
into  his  life  at  Wittenberg,  also  speaks  of  the  report  carried  to 
Court  of  his  intercourse  with  women  and  habits  of  drunkenness 
(vol.  ii.,  p.  132  f.). 

Shortly  before,  in  1522,  Count  Hoyer  of  Mansfeld,  a  Catholic, 
wrote  in  a  letter  to  Count  Ulrich  of  Helfenstein,  brought  to  light 
by  a  Protestant  historian,  "  that  Luther  was  a  thorough  scoundrel, 
who  drank  deeply,  as  was  the  custom  at  Mansfeld,  played  the  lute, 
etc."  (vol.  ii.,  p.  131).  If,  as  we  find  recounted  elsewhere,  Luther, 
on  his  journey  to  the  Diet,  and  at  Worms  itself,  partook  freely 
of  the  costly  wines  in  which  his  enthusiastic  friends  pledged  him, 
this  was,  after  all,  no  great  crime.  It  is  probable,  however,  that 
some  worse  tales  to  Luther's  discredit  in  this  matter  of  drinking 
had  come  to  Hoyer's  ear. 

At  the  time  of  the  Diet  of  Worms,  Aleander,  the  Papal  Legate 
there  present,  indeed  writes  that  Luther  was  "  addicted  to 
drunkenness,"2  but  the  credulous  diplomat  probably  trusted  to 
what  he  heard  from  parties  hostile  to  Luther  and  little  acquainted 
with  him.  (See  vol.  ii.,  p.  78  f.)  It  is  also  a  fact  that,  to  Italians 
imbued  with  the  idea  that  the  Germans  were  drunkards,  even 
quite  moderate  drinking  might  seem  scandalous. 

Cochlseus  says  of  Luther  in  1524  :  "  According  to  what  I  hear, 
in  his  excessive  indulgence  in'  beer,  Luther  is  worse  than  a 
debauchee."3  Here  again  we  have  merely  an  echo  of  statements 
made  by  strangers,  albeit  in  this  instance  stronger  and  more 
positive. — Less  weight  is  to  be  attached  to  the  account  of  Jacob 
Ziegler  of  Landau,  who  writes  from  Rome  to  Erasmus  on 
February  16,  1522,  that  there  Luther  was  regarded  as  "  given  to 
fornication  and  tippling,"  adding  that  he  was  considered  as  the 
precursor  of  Antichrist.4 — Of  the  inhabitants  of  Wittenberg 
generally  Ulrich  Zasius  complains,  in  a  letter  of  December  21, 

1  "  De  consideratione  praesentium  temporum,"  Venetiis,  1547. 
Cochlseus's  "  De  persona  et  doctrina  M.  Lutheri  indicium  fratris 
A.  Catharini,"  etc.,  Moguntiae,  1548,  gives  the  words  on  fol.  C.  2a. 

2  Brieger,  "  Aleander  und  Luther,"  p.  170  ;  "  alia  quale  (ebrieta)  b 
deditissimo." 

3  "  Helluone  in  crapula  et  ebrietate  cervisiaria,  ut  audio,  foedior." 

4  Cp.  "  Archiv  fur  Reformationsgesch.,"  "  Texte  und  Untersuch- 
ungen,"  3  Jahrg.,  Hft.  1,  p.  79,  article  by  P.  Kalkoff,  "  Romische  Urteile 
iiber  Luther  und  Erasmus  im  Jahre  1521."     See  our  vol.  ii.,  p.  133. 


304         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

1521,  to  Thomas  Blaurer,  that  it  was  reported  they  ran  almost 
daily  to  communion  but  afterwards  swilled  beer  to  such  an  extent 
that  they  were  unable  to  recognise  each  other.1  To  his  other 
charges  against  the  life  led  there  and  against  the  heads  of  the 
movement,  Blaurer  replied,  but,  curiously  enough,  the  complaint 
of  drunkenness  he  does  not  even  refer  to.2  From  the  detailed 
description  given  by  a  Catholic  Canon  of  Wittenberg  on  Decem- 
ber 29,  1521,  we  do,  however,  learn  that  the  greatest  abuses 
prevailed  in  connection  with  the  Supper,  and  that  some  even 
communicated  who  had  previously  been  indulging  in  brandy.3 

The  last  witness  had  nothing  to  say  of  Luther  personally.  On 
the  other  hand,  another  does  state  that,  the  night  before  his  death, 
he  was  "  plane  obrutus  potu."  This,  however,  comes  from  a 
later  writer,  who  lived  far  away  and  has  shown  himself  otherwise 
untrustworthy. 4 

Another  less  unreliable  report  also  has  to  do  with  Luther's 
death-bed.  Johann  Landau,  the  Mansfeld  apothecary,  who  was 
a  Catholic,  and  had  occasion  to  handle  Luther's  corpse,  left  the 
following  in  the  notes  he  made  :  "In  consequence  of  excessive 
eating  and  drinking  the  body  was  full  of  corrupt  juices,"  Luther 
had  "  exceeded  in  the  use  of  sweet  foreign  wines."  "  It  is  said," 
he  continues,  "  that  he  drank  every  day  at  noon  and  in  the 
evening  a  sextar  of  rich  foreign  wine."5  This  statement  does  not 
appear  to  be  restricted  to  the  last  days  of  Luther's  life,  which 
were  spent  with  Count  Mansfeld.  It  is  well  known  that  Luther 
died  after  a  meal.  What  amount  the  "sextar  "  and  the  "  stueb- 
chen,"  to  be  mentioned  immediately,  represented  has  not  yet 
been  determined,  as  the  measures  differed  so  much  in  various 
parts  of  the  country.  The  sextar,  according  to  G.  Agricola,  was 
usually  a  quarter  of  the  stuebchen,  as,  according  to  him,  twenty- 
four  sextars  or  six  stuebchen  went  to  one  amphora  ;  the  sextar 
itself  contained  four  gills."6  In  a  letter  of  Luther's,  dating  from 
the  period  of  his  stay  at  Mansfeld,  we  find  the  following  :  "  We 
live  well  here,"  he  writes  to  Katey,  "  and  the  council  allows  me 
for  each  meal  half  a  gallon  of  excellent  Rheinfall.  Sometimes  I 
drink  it  with  my  companions.  The  wine  produced  here  is  also 
good  and  the  Naumburg  beer  quite  capital."7  Rheinfall  (more 
correctly  Reinfal)  was  a  southern  wine  then  highly  prized.8 
Luther,  as  a  rule,  preferred  to  keep  to  Naumburg  beer.9 

1  "  Briefwechsel  der  Briider  Ambrosius  und  Thomas  Blaurer,"  I, 
1908,  p.  43  ;  "  Tui  Wittenberg enses  velut  quotidie  communicant  et  mox 
cerevisia  inebrianiur,  ut  sese  aliquando  non  cognoscant,  ita  enimfertur" 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  58-68.  3  Barge,  "  Karlstadt,"  2,  p.  558. 

4  Henr.  Sedulius,  O.S.F.,  "  Praescriptiones  adv.  haereses,"  Antwerp, 
1606,  p.  210.  It  was  he  who  published  the  false  document  concerning 
Luther's  alleged  suicide  (see  vol.  vi.,  xxxix.  3). 

6  Paulus,  "  Luthers  Lebensende,"  1898,  p.  70. 

6  "  De  mensuris,"  Basileae,  1550,  pp.  4,  338. 

7  Luther  to  Katey,  February  7,  1546,  Letters,  ed.  De  Wette,  5, 
p    788.  8  Grimm,  "  Deutsches  Worterbuch,"  8,  p.  700. 

9  Cp.  the  letter  addressed  to  Katey  on  February  1,  1546,  p.  786  : 
"  I  drink  Neunburgish  beer." 


THE  GOOD  DRINK  305 

Luther 's  Own  Comments  on  the  "  Good  Drink." 

The  following  statements  of  Luther's  concerning  his 
indulgence  in  spirituous  liquors  are  especially  noteworthy  ; 
of  these  some  have  been  quoted  without  sufficient  attention 
being  paid  to  their  real  meaning. 

"  Know  that  all  goes  well  with  me  here,"  Luther  writes 
in  1540  from  Weimar  to  his  Katey,  who  was  anxious  about 
him  ;  "I  feed  like  a  Bohemian,  and  swill  like  a  German, 
for  which  God  be  thanked,  Amen."1  Soon  after  he  repeats, 
in  a  letter  to  the  same  addressee,  the  phrase  whrch  has  since 
grown  famous,  this  time  in  a  slightly  amended  form  : 
Know  "  that  we  are  well  and  cheerful  here,  thanks  be  to 
God  ;  we  feed  like  Bohemians,  though  not  too  much,  and 
swill  like  Germans,  not  deeply  but  with  jollity."2  He  is 
fond  of  thus  speaking  of  his  "  feeding  and  swilling,"  though, 
such  expressions  being  less  unconventional  then  than  now, 
stress  must  not  be  laid  on  them.  In  both  letters  he  was 
clearly  seeking  by  his  jests  to  reassure  his  wife,  who  was 
concerned  for  his  health.  During  his  last  weeks  at  Eisleben 
he  also  wrote  to  Katey  :  "  We  have  plenty  on  which  to  feed 
and  swill."3 

"  If  the  Lord  God  holds  me  excused,"  he  says  in  a  famous 
utterance  in  the  Table-Talk,  "  for  having  plagued  Him  for 
quite  twenty  years  by  celebrating  Mass,  He  assuredly  will 
excuse  me  for  sometimes  indulging  in  a  drink  to  His 
honour  ;   God  grant  it  and  let  the  world  take  it  as  it  will."4 

Of  the  last  decade  of  Luther's  life  his  pupil  Mathesius 
relates,  that,  in  the  evening,  "  if  not  inclined  for  sleep,  he 
had  to  take  a  draught  to  promote  it,  often  making  excuse 
for  so  doing  :  '  You  young  fellows  must  not  mind  if  our 
Elector  and  an  old  chap  like  me  take  a  generous  drink  ;  we 
have  to  try  and  find  our  pillow  and  our  bolster  in  the 
tankard.'  "5  The  same  witness  relates  another  utterance  of 
about  the  same  time  :    "  He  came  home  from  a  party  and 

1  On  July  2,  1540,  "  Brief wechsel,"  ed.  Burkhardt,  p.  357. 

2  On  July  16,  1540,  Letters,  ed.  De  Wette,  5,  p.  298.  De  Wette's 
edition  of  this  letter  is  not  altogether  trustworthy.  Cp.  Burkhardt, 
"  Briefe  Luthers,"  p.  358. 

3  On  February  6,  1546,  ibid.,  p.  786. 

4  From  the  written  notes  of  Veit  Dietrich  (the  "most  reliable 
authority  on  the  Table-Talk"),  see  Ko\3tlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  498.  Cp. 
a  parallel  passage  in  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  57,  p.  135. 

5  Mathesius,  "Historien,"  1566,  p.  151. 

III.— X 


306         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

drank  the  health  of  a  guest :  ■  I  must  make  merry  to-day, 
for  I  have  received  bad  tidings  ;  for  this  there  is  no  better 
cure  than  a  fervent  Paternoster  and  a  brave  heart.  For 
the  demon  of  melancholy  is  much  put  out  when  a  man 
insists  upon  being  merry.'  "x 

Here  we  have  two  reasons,  want  of  sleep  and  depression 
resulting  from  bad  news,  which  induced  him  to  have  a 
"  good  drink."  A  third  reason  was  furnished  by  his  tempta- 
tions to  doubt  and  vacillate  in  faith.  The  "  good  drink  " 
must  not,  however,  be  too  deep  as  it  "  recently  was  at  the 
Electoral  couchee  at  Torgau,  where,  not  satisfied  with  the 
usual  measures,  they  pledged  each  other  in  half-gallon  cans. 
That  they  called  a  good  drink.  Sic  inventa  lege  inventa 
est  etfraus  legis."2 

Luther's  advice  to  his  pupil  Hieronymus  Weller,  when  the 
latter  was  tempted  and  troubled,  as  stated  above  (p.  175), 
was  to  follow  his  example  and  "  to  drink  deeper  and  jest  more 
freely,"  and  to  answer  the  devil  when  he  objected  to  such 
drinking,  that  "  he  would  drink  all  the  more  because  he 
forbade  it  "  ;  he  himself  (Luther),  for  no  other  reason,  was 
wont  to  drink  more  deeply  and  talk  more  freely  than  to 
scorn  the  devil  bv  his  "  hard  drinking."3  "  When  troubled 
with  gloomy  thoughts,"  he  declared  on  another  occasion, 
it  was  his  habit  "  to  have  a  good  pull  at  the  beer  "  ;  Me- 
lanchthon  had  a  different  sort  of  remedy,  viz.  consulting 
the  stars  ;  Luther,  however,  considered  his  practice  the 
better  one.4 

These  and  such-like  utterances  circulated  far  and  wide, 
often  in  a  highly  exaggerated  form,  and  Luther  had  only 
himself  to  thank  if  many  Catholics,  on  the  strength  of  them, 
came  to  regard  him  as  a  regular  drunkard.  This  impression 
was  in  no  way  diminished  by  the  rough  humour  which 
accompanied  his  talk  of  eating  and  drinking.  People  then 
were  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  fact  that  the  Table-Talk 
was  regarded,  even  by  some  enthusiastic  Lutherans,  as  only 
a  half  revelation,  the  truth  being  that  they  did  not  make 
sufficient  allowance  for  Luther's  vein  of  humour  and 
exaggeration, 
•t  was,  however,  quite  seriously  that  Luther  spoke  in 

1  Mathesius,  "Historien,"  1566,  p.  152. 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  451  ("  Tischreden  "). 

3  Letter  of  1530  (July  ?),  "  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  159  seq. 

4  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  516,  from  Veit  Dietrich's  MS. 


THE  GOOD   DRINK  307 

August,  1540,  when. the  excessive  drinking  of  the  miners 
was  discussed  at  table  :  "  It  is  not  well,"  he  said,  "  but  if 
they  work  hard  for  the  rest  of  the  week,  then  we  must  allow 
them  some  relaxation  (at  the  week-end).  Their  work  is 
hard  and  very  dangerous  and  some  allowance  must  be  made 
for  the  custom  of  the  country.  I,  too,  have  an  occasional 
tipple,  but  not  everybody  must  follow  my  example,  for  not 
all  have  the  work  to  do  that  I  have."1  Here,  accordingly, 
we  have  a  fourth  reason  alleged  in  excuse  of  his  drinking, 
possibly  the  most  usual  and  practical  one,  viz.  his  fatiguing 
work.— •n  May  of  the  same  year  he  expressed  his  opinion 
of  the  extent  to  which  drinking  might  be  allowable  in 
certain  circles  ;  this  he  did  because  he  had  been  accused  of 
not  reproving  drunkenness  at  the  Court :  "  On  the  con 
trary,"  he  says,  "  I  have  spoken  strongly  about  it  before 
the  whole  Court ;  truly  I  spoke  forcibly  and  severely  to  the 
nobles,  reproaching  them  with  tempting  and  corrupting  the 
Prince.  This  greatly  pleased  the  old  gentleman  [the  Elector 
Johann],  for  he  lived  temperately.  .  .  .  #  said  to  the  nobles  : 
'  You  ought  to  employ  yourselves  after  dinner  in  the 
Palaestra  or  in  some  other  good  exercise,  after  which  you. 
might  have  a  good  drink,  for  drinking  is  permissible,  but 
drunkenness  never  (ebrietas  est  ferenda,  sed  cbriositas 
minime).'  "2  "  Cheerful  people,"  he  said  in  May  or  June, 
"  may  sometimes  indulge  more  freely  in  wine,"  but  if 
drinking  makes  a  man  angry,  he  must  avoid  it  like  "  poison." 
These  words  were  meant  for  his  nephew,  Hans  Polner,  who 
was  in  the  habit  of  returning  to  Luther's  house  much  the 
worse  for  drink.  With  him  Luther  was  very  wroth  :  "  On 
your  account  I  am  ill-spoken  of  by  foreigners.  My  foes 
spy  out  everything  that  goes  on  about  me.  .  .  .  When  you 
do  some  mischief  while  drunk,  you  forget  what  shame  you 
are  bringing  not  only  upon  me  and  on  my  house,  but  on  the 
town,  the  Church  and  the  Evangel.    Others  after  a  drinking- 

1  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  185. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  95.  Cp.  Mathesius's  notes  in  Loesche,  "  Analecta 
Lutherana  et  Melanthoniana,"  p.  100  :  "  Then  I  would  permit  you  a 
good  drink  ;  nam  ebrietudo  est  ferenda,  non  ebriositas"  Forcellini's 
definition  :  "  ebriositas  —  propensio  in  ebrietatem."  According  to 
Loesche,  Luther  himself  invented  the  word  "  ebrietudo."  Luther  says 
of  the  Elector  Johann  Frederick  in  his  work,  "  Wider  Hans  Worst  "  : 
"  Sometimes  he  takes  a  drink  too  much,  which  we  are  sorry  to  see," 
but  it  was  untrue  that  he  was  "  a  drunkard  and  led  a  disorderly  life  " 
("  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  262,  p.  74). 


308         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

bout  are  merry  and  friendly  ;  such  was  the  case  with  my 
father  ;  they  simply  sing  and  jest ;  but  you,  you  fly  into  a 
rage."1 

^Luther,  when  preaching  to  the  people,  often  denounced 
the  prevalent  habit  of  drinking,  a  circumstance  which  must 
not  be  overlooked  when  passing  judgment  upon  him.  ^he 
German  vice  of  drunkenness  which  he  saw  increasing  around 
him  in  the  most  alarming  manner  caused  him  such  distress, 
that  he  exclaimed  in  one  of  his  postils#  "  Our  poor  German 
land  is  chastised  and  plagued  with  this  devil  of  drink,  and 
altogether  drowned  in  this  vice,  so  that  life  and  limb, 
possessions  and  honour,  are  shamefully  lost  while  people 
lead  the  life  of  swine,  so  that,  had  we  to  depict  Germany,  we 
should  have  to  show  it  under  the  image  of  a  sow."2  Only 
"  the  little  children,  virgins  and  women  "  were  exempt  from 
the  malady  ;  "  unless  God  strikes  at  this  vice  by  a  national 
calamity  everything  will  go  down  to  the  abyss,  all  sodden 
through  and  through  with  drink."3  Was  this  the  way  to  be 
grateful  "  to  the  light  of  the  Evangel  "  which  had  burst 
upon  Germany  ?  4  His  question  shows  that  he  was  speaking 
primarily  of  the  conditions  prevailing  under  the  new  Evangel, 
booking  back  on  the  Catholic  past  he  has  perforce  to  admit, 
that,  although  this  vice  was  by  no  means  unknown  then,  yet 
"  I  remember  that  when  I  was  young  it  [drunkenness]  was 
looked  upon  by  the  nobility  as  a  great  shame,  and  that  worthy 
gentry  and  Princes  sought  to  combat  it  by  wise  prohibitions 
and  penalties  ;  but  now  it  is  even  worse  and  more  prevalent 
amongst  them  than  amongst  the  peasants  ;  so  far  has  it 
come  that  even  Princes  and  men  of  gentle  birth  learn  it 
from  their  squires,  and  are  not  ashamed  of  it ;  it  is  regarded 
as  honourable  and  quite  a  virtue  by  Princes,  nobles  and 
burghers,  so  that  whosoever  refuses  to  become  a  sodden 
brute  is  despised."5 

In  powerful  passages  such  as  these  he  assails  the  vice 
from  both  the  natural  and  the  supernatural  standpoint. 
Yet  his  chief  complaint  is  not  so  much  its  existence  as  its 
appalling  extent ;  his  reproofs  are  intended  for  those  who 
"  get  drunk  daily,"  for  those  "  maddened  and  sodden  with 
drink,"  for  those  who  "  day  and  night  are  ever  pouring  the 

1  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  141. 

2  "  Werke."  Erl.  ed.,  82,  p.  294.  3  Ibid.,  pp.  294,  296 
4  Ibid.,  p.  297  ;   cp.  p.  292.  5  Ibid.,  p.  293. 


THE   GOOD  DRINK  309 

liquor  down  their  throats."  He  expressly  states  that  he  is 
willing  to  be  lenient  in  cases  where  a  man  is  drunk  only  now 
and  again.  "  It  may  be  borne  with  and  overlooked,"  he 
says  in  the  sermon  quoted,  "  if  from  time  to  time  a  person 
by  mistake  takes  a  glass  too  much,  or,  after  being  exhausted 
by  labour  and  toil,  gets  a  little  the  worse  for  drink."1 

#n  1534,  in  an  exposition  of  Psalm  ci.,  where  he  describes 
the  doings  of  the  "  Secular  Estate,"  he  is  no  less  hopeless 
concerning  this  plague  which  afflicts  Germany  :#"  Every 
country  must  have  its  own  devil ;  our  German  devil  is  a 
good  skin  of  wine  and  surely  his  name  is  Swill  "  ;  until  the 
last  day  eternal  thirst  would  remain  the  German's  curse  ; 
it  was  quite  useless  to  seek  to  remedy  matters,  Swill  still 
remained  the  all-powerful  god.2  More  dignified  language 
would  assuredly  have  been  better  in  place  here  and  else- 
where where  he  deals  with  this  subject.  For  quaint  homeli- 
ness it  would,  however,  be  hard  to  beat  him  ;  referring  to 
their  drinking  habits,  he  tells  the  great  men  at  the  Court  : 
"  In  the  morning  you  really  look  as  though  your  heads  had 
been  pickled  in  brine."3  Yet,  from  the  very  passage  in  the 
Table-Talk  where  this  is  recounted,  we  learn  that  he  said 
to  the  guests,  again  in  a  far  too  indulgent  strain  :  "  The  Lord 
God  must  account  the  drunkenness  of  us  Germans  a  mere 
daily  [i.e.  venial]  sin,  for  we  are  unable  to  give  it  up  ;  never- 
theless, it  is  a  shameful  curse,  harmful  alike  to  body,  soul 
and  property." 

Witnesses  to  Luther's  Temperate  Habits. 

Within  Luther's  camp  the  chief  witnesses  to  his  temperate 
habits  are  Melanchthon  and  Mathesius. 

Melanchthon  in  his  formal  panegyric  on  the  deceased  says, 
that  "  though  a  stout  man,  he  was  very  moderate  in  eating  and 
drinking  ('  natura  valde  modici  cibi  et  potus  ').  I  have  seen  him, 
when  quite  in  good  health,  abstaining  entirely  from  food  and 
drink  for  four  days.  At  other  times  I  frequently  saw  him  content 
himself  for  many  days  with  a  little  bread  with  kippers."4  His 
four  days'  abstinence,  however,  probably  coincided  with  one  of 
his  attacks — "  temptations,"  which,  as  we  know  from  Ratze- 
berger,  his  medical  adviser,  were  usually  accompanied  by 
intense  dislike  for  food.     Besides,  before  his  marriage,  Luther 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  82,  p.  295.  2  Ibid.,  39,  p.  353. 

3  Mathesius,   "  Tischreden,"  p.  95. 

4  "  Vita    Lutheri "     ("  Vitce    quatuor    reformatorum"    ed.    A.    T. 
Neander  (n.  5,  p.  5). 


/ 


310         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

had  not  the  same  attention  and  care  he  received  later  from  his 
wife.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  Melanchthon  was  thinking  of  this 
period  when  he  speaks  of  the  "  bread  and  kippers,"  for  the 
passage  really  refers  to  the  beginning  of  his  acquaintanceship 
with  Luther,  possibly  even  to  his  monastic  days.  However  this 
may  be,  we  must  not  forget  that  the  clause  is  part  of  a  panegyric. 
Mathesius,  Luther's  attentive  pupil  and  admirer,  says  of  him 
in  his  sermons,  that  Luther,  "  although  he  was  somewhat 
corpulent,  ate  and  drank  little  and  rarely  anything  out  of  the 
common,  but  contented  himself  with  ordinary  food.  In  the 
evening,  if  not  inclined  to  sleep,  he  had  to  take  a  draught  to 
promote  it,  often  making  excuse  for  so  doing."1 

That  Luther  was  perfectly  content  "without  anything 
out  of  the  common  "  is  confirmed  by  other  writers,  and 
concerning  the  general  frugality  of  his  household  there  can 
be  no  question.  In  this  respect  we  may  well  believe  what 
Mathesius  says,  for  he  was  a  regular  attendant  at  Luther's 
evening  table  in  the  forties  of  the  century.  His  assertion 
that  Luther  "  drank  but  little  "  must,  however,  be  con- 
sidered in  the  light  of  other  of  his  statements. 

What  Mathesius  thought  of  the  "  sleeping-draught  "  and 
the  feasts  at  which,  so  he  relates,  Luther  assisted  from 
time  to  time,  appears  from  a  discourse  incorporated  by  him 
in  his  "  Wedding-sermons."  Here  he  speaks  of  the  "  noble 
juice  of  the  grape  and  how  we  can  make  use  of  it  in  a  godly 
fashion  and  with  a  good  conscience  "  ;  he  is  simply  the 
mouthpiece  of  Luther.  Like  Luther,  he  condemns  gluttony 
and  "  bestial  drunkenness,"  but  is  so  indulgent  in  the 
matter  of  cheerful  carousing  that  a  Protestant  Canon  in  the 
eighteenth  century  declared,  that  Mathesius  had  gone 
astray  in  his  sermon  on  the  use  of  wine.2  Mathesius  says 
that  we  must  have  "  a  certain  amount  of  patience  "  with 
those  who  sometimes,  for  some  quite  valid  reason,  "  get  a 
little  tipsy,"  or  "  kick  over  the  traces,"  provided  they 
"  don't  do  so  every  day  "and  that  "  the  next  morning  they 
are  heartily  sorry  for  it  "  ;  the  learned  were  quite  right  in 
distinguishing  between  "  ebriositas  "  and  "  ebrietas  "  ;  if  a 
ruling  Prince  had  worked  industriously  all  day,  or  a  scholar 
had  "  read  and  studied  till  his  head  swam,"  such  busy  and 
much-tired  people,  if  they  chose  "  in  the  evening  to  drink 

1  "  Historien,"  1566,  p.  151.     Then  follows  the  passage  referred  to 
on  p.  305  concerning  Luther  and  the  Elector. 

2  See    Loesche's    Introduction    to    the    edition   mentioned    in    the 
following  note. 


THE  GOOD   DRINK  811 

away  their  cares  and  heavy  thoughts,  must  be  permitted 
some  over-indulgence,  particularly  if  it  does  not  hinder  them 
in  the  morning  from  praying,  studying  and  working."1 

This  is  the  exact  counterpart  of  Luther's  theory  and 
practice  as  already  described,  in  the  distinction  made 
between  "  ebriositas  "  and  "  ebrietas"  in  the  statement  that 
drunkenness  is  no  more  than  a  venial  sin,  in  the  unseemly 
and  jocose  tone  employed  when  speaking  of  tipsiness,  and 
in  the  license  accorded  those  who  (like  Luther)  had  much 
work  to  do,  or  (again,  like  Luther),  were  plagued  with 
"  gloomy  thoughts."  The  other  conditions  are  also  note- 
worthy, viz.  that  it  must  not  be  of  "  daily  occurrence  "  and 
that  the  offender  must  afterwards  be  "  heartily  sorry  "  ; 
in  such  a  case  we  must  be  tolerant.  All  this  agrees  with 
Luther's  own  teaching. 

Such  passages,  coming  from  the  master  and  his  devoted 
disciple,  must  be  taken  as  the  foundation  on  which  to  base 
our  judgment.  Such  general  statements  of  principle  must 
carry  more  weight  than  isolated  instances  of  Luther's  actual 
practice,  more  even  than  the  various  testimonies  con- 
sidered above.  In  the  eyes  of  the  impartial  historian,  more- 
over, the  various  elements  will  be  seen  to  fit  into  each  other 
so  as  to  form  a  whole,  the  elements  being  on  the  one  hand 
the  highly  questionable  principle  we  have  just  heard 
expressed,  and  on  the  other  his  own  admissions  concerning 
his  practice,  supplemented  by  the  testimony  of  outsiders. 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  no  doubt  that  his  theory  was 
dangerously  lax.  We  need  only  call  to  mind  the  string  of 
reasons  given  in  vindication  of  a  "  good  drink  "  and  mere 
"  ebrietas."  Such  excuses  were  not  only  insufficient  but 
might  easily  be  adduced  daily  in  ever-increasing  number. 
Luther's  limitation  of  the  permission  to  occasional  bouts, 
etc.,  was  altogether  illusory  and  constituted  no  real  barrier 
against  excess.  How  could  such  theories,  we  may  well  ask, 
promote  temperance  and  self-denial  ?  Instead  of  resisting 
the  lower  impulses  of  nature  they  give  the  reins  to  license. 

1  G.  Mathesius,  "  Hochzeitspredigten,"  ed.  Loesche,  Prague,  1897 
("Bibliothek  deutscher  Schriftsteller  aus  Bohmen,"  Bd.  6).  The 
sermon  in  question  was  delivered  in  a  castle  in  1553  (pp.  311-335). 
Loesche  says  of  the  same  :  "  It  is  not  necessary  to  be  a  rabid  teetotaller 
to  feel  that  Urbanus — from  the  title  of  the  sermon — treads  dangerous 
ground,  and  would  to-day  be  considered  quite  scandalously  lax." 
Cp.  N.  P[aulus]  in  the  Koln.  Volksztng.,  1904,  No.  623 :  on  Luther's 
admission  "  I  also  tipple." 


812         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

They  are  part  and  parcel  of  the  phenomenon  so  noticeable 
in  early  Lutheranism,  where  Christian  endeavour,  owing 
to  the  discredit  with  which  penance  and  good  works  were 
overwhelmed,  was  not  allowed  to  rise  above  the  level  of 
ordinary  life,  and  indeed  often  failed  to  attain  even  to  this 
standard.  How  different  sound  the  injunctions  of  Christ 
and  His  Apostles  to  the  devoted  followers  of  the  true 
Gospel :  Take  up  thy  cross  ;  resist  the  flesh  and  all  its  lusts  ; 
be  sober  and  watch. 

The  result  as  regards  Luther's  practice  must  on  the  whole 
be  considered  as  unfavourable,  though  it  is  not  of  course 
so  well  known  to  us  as  his  theory.  It  may  also,  quite  pos- 
sibly, have  varied  at  different  periods  of  his  life,  for  instance, 
may  not  have  been  the  same  when  Mathesius  was  acquainted 
with  him,  i.e.  when  his  mode  of  life  had  become  more 
regular,  as  when  Count  Hoyer  of  Mansfeld  wrote  so  scorn- 
fully after  the  Diet  of  Worms.  Nevertheless,  Luther's 
vigorous  denunciation  of  habitual  drunkenness  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  extraordinary  amount  of  work  he  contrived 
to  get  through  on  the  other,  also  the  absence  of  any  very 
damaging  or  definite  charge  by  those  who  had  every  oppor- 
tunity of  observing  him  at  Wittenberg,  for  instance,  the 
hostile  Anabaptists  and  other  "  sectarians,"  all  this  leads 
us  to  infer,  that  he  availed  himself  of  his  theories  only  to 
a  very  limited  extent.  His  own  statements,  however,  as 
well  as  those  of  his  friends  and  opponents,  enable  us  to  see 
that  his  lax  principle,  "  ebrietas  est  ferenda"  was  not  with- 
out its  effects  upon  his  habits  of  life.  The  allegation  of  his 
joy  of  living,  and  his  healthy  love  of  the  things  of  sense, 
does  not  avail  to  explain  away  his  own  admissions,  nor 
what  others  laid  to  his  charge.  The  worst  of  it  is,  that  we 
gain  the  impression  that  the  lax  theory  was  conceived  to 
suit  his  own  case,  for  all  the  reasons  which  he  held  to  excuse 
the  "  good  drink  "  and  the  subsequent  "  ebrietas  "  were 
present  in  his  case — depression  caused  by  bad  news,  cares 
and  gloomy  thoughts,  pressure  of  work,  temptations  to 
sadness  and  doubts,  sleeplessness  and  mental  exhaustion. 

From  the  Cellar  and  the  Tap-Room. 

The  task  remains  of  considering  certain  further  traits  in 
Luther's  life  with  regard  to  his  indulgence  in  drinking. 
During  the  first  part  of  his  public  career  Luther  himself 


THE   GOOD  DRINK  313 

speaks  of  the  temptation  to  excessive  eating  and  drinking 
and  other  bad  habits  to  which  he  was  exposed.  This  he  did 
in  1519  in  his  remarkably  frank  confession  to  his  superior 
Staupitz.1  Here  the  expression  "  crapula  "  must  be  taken 
more  seriously  than  on  another  occasion  when,  in  a  letter  to 
a  friend  written  from  the  Wartburg  in  the  midst  of  his 
arduous  labours,  he  describes  himself  as  "  sitting  idle,  and 
'  crapulosus.''  "2 

After  Luther's  marriage,  when  he  had  settled  down 
comfortably  in  the  Black  Monastery,  it  was  Catherine,  who, 
agreeably  with  the  then  custom,  brewed  the  beer  at  home. 
It  seems,  however,  to  have  been  of  inferior  quality,  indeed  not 
fit  to  set  before  his  guests.  That  he  had  several  sorts  of 
wine  in  his  cellar  we  learn  on  the  occasion  of  the  marriage 
of  his  niece  Lena  in  1538.  He  complains  that  in  Germany 
it  was  very  hard  to  buy  "  a  really  trustworthy  drink,"  as 
even  the  carriers  adulterated  the  wines  on  the  way.3 

As  already  stated,  beer  was  his  usual  drink.  Whilst  he 
was  "  drinking  Wittenberg  beer  with  Philip  and  Amsdorf," 
he  said  as  early  as  1522,  in  a  well-known  passage,  "  the 
Papacy  had  been  weakened  through  the  Word  of  God  " 
which  he  had  preached.4 

It  was,  however,  with  wine  that  on  great  occasions  the 
ample  "  Catechismusglas  "  (sec  above,  p.  219)  was  filled.5 
How  much  this  bowl  contained  which  Luther,  though  not 
his  guest  Agricola,  could  empty  at  one  draught,  has  not 
been  determined,  though  illustrations  of  it  were  thought  to 
exist.  Agricola's  statement  concerning  his  vain  attempt 
to  drain  it  leads  us  to  conclude  that  the  famous  glass  was 
of  considerable  size.  It  impresses  one  strangely  to  learn 
that  Luther  occasionally  toasted  his  guests  in  a  crystal  beaker 

1  Letter  of  February  20,  1519,  "  Brief wechsel,"  I,  p.  431  :  "  cx- 
positus  et  involutus  .  .  .  crapulae."  Cp.  our  vol.  i.,  p.  368.  Luther 
uses  the  word  "  crapulatus  "  in  the  sense  of  "  e&rms,"  "  Werke,"  Weim. 
ed.,  3,  pp.  559  and  596.  In  the  larger  Commentary  on  Galatians,  how- 
ever, a  distinction  is  made  between  "  ebrietas  "  and  "  crapula,'''  3,  pp. 
47  and  53  ;  cp.  the  smaller  Commentary  (1519),  Weim.  ed.,  2,  p.  591  : 
"  Commessatio,  quae  Lc.  xxi.  34  [crapula]  dicitur  ;  sicut  ebrietas  nimium 
bibendo,  ita  crapula  nimium  comedendo  gravat  corda." 

2  To  Spalatin,  May  14,  1521,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  3,  p.  154.  Cp.  our 
vol.  ii.,  pp.  82,  87,  94. 

3  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2.  p.  497.  *  See  above,  p.  219. 

6  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  58,  p.  337  ("  Tischreden  ")  :  "  A  glass  with 
three  ridges  .  .  .  down  to  the  first  the  Ten  Commandments,  down  to 
the  second  the  Creed,  the  third  with  the  [Our  Father  of  the]  Catechism 
in  full." 


314         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

reputed  to  have  once  belonged  to  St.  Elizabeth  of  Hungary  ; 
this  too,  no  doubt,  passed  from  hand  to  hand.1 

An  example  of  Luther's  accustomed  outspokenness  was 
witnessed  by  some  of  those  who  happened  to  be  present  on 
the  arrival  of  a  Christmas  gift  of  wine  in  1538.  The  cask 
came  from  the  Margrave  of  Brandenburg  and,  to  the  intense 
disappointment  of  the  recipient,  contained  Franconian  wine. 
Luther,  in  spite  of  the  importance  of  the  gift,  made  no 
secret  of  his  annoyance,  and  his  complaints  would  appear 
to  have  duly  reached  the  ear  of  the  Margrave.  In  order 
to  efface  the  bad  impression  made  at  Court,  Luther  was 
obliged  to  send  a  letter  of  excuse  to  Sebastian  Heller,  the 
Chancellor.  Therein  he  says  he  had  been  quite  unaware  of 
the  excellence  of  Franconian  wine,  and,  "  like  the  big  fool  M 
he  was,  had  not  known  that  the  inhabitants  of  Franconia 
were  so  fortunate  in  their  wine  as  now,  after  tasting  it,  he 
had  ascertained  to  be  the  case.  In  future  he  was  going  to 
stick  to  Franconian  wine  ;  to  the  Prince  he  sent  his  best 
thanks  and  trusted  he  would  take  nothing  amiss.2 — From 
the  Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse,  after  he  had  forwarded  him 
his  memorandum  regarding  his  bigamy,  he  received  a 
hogshead  of  Rhine  wine.3  In  the  same  year  he  received 
from  the  Town  Council  of  Wittenberg  a  present  of  a  gallon 
of  Franconian  "  and  four  quarts  of  Gutterbogk  wine  "  on 
the  occasion  of  the  marriage  of  his  niece,  mentioned  above. 

From  the  magistrates,  in  addition  to  other  presents, 
came  frequent  gifts  of  liquor  for  himself  and  his  guests,  of 
which  we  find  the  entries  since  1519  recorded  in  the  Town- 
registers. 

Only  recently  has  attention  been  drawn  to  this.4 

In  1525  we  find  the  following  items  :  "7  Gulden  for  six 
cans  of  Franconian  wine  at  14  Groschen  the  quart  presented 

1  S.  Keil,  "  Des  seligen  Zeugen  Gottes  Dr.  M.  Luthers  merkwiirdige 
Lebensumstande,"  3,  Leipzig,  1764,  p.  156  f.  He  considers  that  the 
latter  statements  in  the  text  were  "  inventions  "  ;  at  any  rate  "  there 
was  no  harm  in  the  matter  itself,"  and  the  "  conclusion  of  the  Papists 
that  Luther  was  a  drunkard  "  were  therefore  false.  Kostlin-Kawerau 
2,  p.  510.  On  the  famous  but  almost  legendary  "  Luther-beakers,"  F 
Kuchenmeister  has  an  article  with  interesting  sketches  in  the  "  III 
Zeitung,"  1879,  November  1. 

2  Letter  of  May  12,  1532,  "  Brief wechsel,"  11,  p.  359:  "  Fateor 
culpam  meant  et  conscius  mihi  sum,  effudisse  Trie  verba"  etc. 

3  Cp.  "  Brief  wechsel  des  Landgrafen  Philipp  von  Hessen,"  ed. 
Lenz  1,  pp.  326,  336,  362  f.,  389. 

4  "  Evangelisch-kirchl.  Anzeiger,"  Berlin,'  1904,  p.  70  f. 


THE  GOOD   DRINK  315 

Doctori  Marti  no  on  his  engagement ;  136  Gulden,  6  Groschen 
for  a  barrel  of  Einbeck  beer  presented  Doctori  Martino 
for  his  wedding;  440  Gulden  Doctori  Martino  for  wine 
and  beer  presented  by  the  Council  and  the  town  on  the 
occasion  of  his  nuptials  and  wedding.  Fine  of  120  Gulden 
paid  by  Clara,  wedded  wife  of  Lorenz  Eberhard  dwelling 
at  Jessen  for  abusive  language  concerning  Doctor  Martin 
and  his  honourable  wife,  and  also  for  abusing  the  Pastor's 
[Bugenhagen]  wife  at  Master  Lubeck's  wedding;  136 
Gulden,  2  Groschen  for  wine  sent  for  during  the  year  by 
Doctor  Martin  from  the  town  vaults  and  paid  for  by  the 
Council."  In  addition  to  the  various  "  presents  "  made  by 
the  Council,  we  meet  repeatedly  in  other  years  with  items 
recording  deliveries  of  beer  or  wine  which  Luther  had  sent 
for  from  the  town  cellar.  These  are  entered  as  "  owing.  .  .  . 
The  Council  loath  to  sue  him  for  them.  .  .  ."  And  again, 
"  allowed  to  Doctor  Martin  this  year.  .  .  ." 

This  explains  the  low  items  for  liquor  in  Luther's  own  list  of 
household  expenses,  which  were  frequently  quoted  in  proof  of 
his  exceptional  abstemiousness.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  are 
so  small  simply  owing  to  the  presents  and  to  his  requisitions 
on  the  town  cellars,  for  much  of  which  he  never  paid.  "  Four 
pfennigs  daily  for  drink  "  we  read  in  his  household  accounts 
in  a  Gotha  MS.,  the  date  of  which  is  uncertain.1  Seeing  that 
at  Wittenberg  a  can  of  beer  cost  3  pfennigs,  this  would 
allow  him  very  little.  According  to  another  entry  Katey 
required  56  pfennigs  weekly  for  making  the  beer  ;  the 
date  of  this  is  equally  uncertain.  It  is  to  the  filial 
devotion  of  Protestant  researchers  that  we  owe  this 
information.2 

Luther  was  in  a  particularly  cheerful  mood  when  he  wrote, 
on  March  18,  1535,  the  letter,  already  quoted  (p.  296  f.),  to 
his  friend  Caspar  M  uller,  the  Mansfeld  Chancellor  at  Eisleben. 
The  letter  is  to  some  extent  a  humorous  one,  but  is  it  really 
a  fact  that  in  the  last  of  the  three  signatures  appended  he 
qualifies  himself  as  "  Doctor  plenus"  ?3  According  to  some 
controversialists  such  is  the  case. 

It  is  true  that  Denifle  says  of  this  signature,  now  preserved 
with  the  letter  in  the  Vatican  Library,4  "  that  the  badly 

1  "  Farrago,"  etc.,  cod.  chart.  Goth.,  402,  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2, 
p.  681,  n.  498. 

2  "  Evangelisch-kirchl.  Anzeiger,"  ibid. 

3  "  Briefwechsel,"  10,  p.  137.  *  Cod.  Ottobon.,  n.  3029. 


316         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

written  and  scarcely  legible  word  .  ...  .  either  reads  or  might 
be  read  as  4  iilenus?  "l  According  to  R.  Reitzenstein,  on  the 
other  hand,  who  also  studied  them,  the  characters  cannot 
possibly  be  read  thus.  E.  Thiele,  who  mentions  this,  sug- 
gests2 that  perhaps  we  might  read  it  as  "  Doctor  Hans," 
and  that  the  signature  in  question  might  refer  to  Luther's 
little  son  who  was  with  him  and  whose  greetings  with  those 
of  the  mother  Luther  sends  at  the  end  of  the  letter  to 
Miiller,  who  was  the  child's  godfather. 

First  comes  the  legible  signature  "  Doctor  Martinus  "  in 
Luther's  handwriting  ;  below  this,  also  quite  legible,  stands 
"  Doctor  Luther,"  possibly  denoting  his  wife,  as  Thiele 
very  reasonably  conjectures  ;  finally  we  have  the  question- 
able "  Doctor  plenus."  To  read  "  Hans "  instead  of 
"  plenus,"  is,  according  to  Denifle,  "  quite  out  of  the 
question,"  as  I  also  found  when  I  came  to  examine  the 
facsimile  published  by  G.  Evers  in  1883. 3  On  the  other 
hand,  to  judge  by  the  facsimile,  it  appeared  to  me  that 
"  Johannes  "  might  possibly  be  the  true  reading,  and  the 
Latin  form  also  seemed  to  agree  with  that  of  the  previous 
signatures.  When  I  was  able  to  examine  the  original  in 
Rome  in  May,  1907,  I  convinced  myself  that,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  badly  formed  and  intertwined  characters  could 
be  read  as  "  Johannes  "  ;  this  reading  was  also  confirmed 
by  Alfredo  Monaci,  the  palseologist.4  Hence  the  reading 
"  Doctor  plenus,"  too  confidently  introduced  by  Evers  and 
repeated  by  Enders,  though  with  a  query,  in  his  edition  of 
Luther's  letters,  may  safely  be  consigned  to  oblivion.    Even 

1  "  Luther  in  rationalistischer  und  christl.  Beleuchtung,"  p.  77,  n.  3. 

2  "  Christl.  Welt,"  1904,  No.  6,  p.  128. 

3  "  Martin  Luther,"  1,  Beilage.  Cp.  ibid.,  p.  v.  Evers  was  the 
first  to  read  "  Doctor  plenus" 

4  W.  Walther  ("  Theol.  Literaturblatt,"  1906,  p.  473),  on  the 
strength  of  a  photograph,  now  declares  "  Johannes  "  to  be  "  the  most 
likely"  reading,  and  rightly  excludes  "plenus"  on  p.  586  of  his  book, 
"  Fur  Luther."  H.  Bohmer  ("  Luther,"2,  p.  116)  is  also  in  favour  of 
"  Johannes."  G.  Kawerau  for  his  part  thought,  judging  from  the 
photograph,  that  "  plures  "  might  be  read  instead  of  "  plenus,"  in 
which  N.  Miiller  agrees  with  him  ;  he  could  not,  however,  understand 
what  "  plures  "  meant  here.  "  Studien  und  Kritiken,"  1908,  p.  603. 
On  re-examination  of  the  original  I  was  forced  to  decide  against 
"  plures:'  K.  Loffler  ("Hist.  Jahrb.,"  30,  1909,  p.  317)  proposes 
"  Doctor  parvus,"  but  this  is  excluded  by  the  characters,  though  the 
sense  would  be  reasonable  enough.  "  Johannes  "  may  quite  well  be  the 
reading,  since  from  1527  Luther  was  in  the  habit  of  adding  greetings 
from  Katey  and  Hans  in  his  letters. 


THE  GOOD  DRINK  317 

had  it  been  correct,  it  would  merely  have  afforded  a  fresh 
example  of  Luther's  jokes  at  his  own  expense,  and  would 
not  necessarily  have  proved  that  his  mirth  was  due  to 
spirituous  influence. 

In  one  letter  of  Luther's,  which  speaks  of  the  time  he 
passed  in  the  Castle  of  Coburg,  we  hear  more  of  the  dis- 
agreeable than  of  the  cheering  effects  of  wine. 

" 1  have  brought  on  headache  by  drinking  old  wine  in  the 
Coburg,"  he  complains  to  his  friend  Wenceslaus  Link,  "  and 
this  our  Wittenberg  beer  has  not  yet  cured.  I  work  little 
and  am  forced  to  be  idle  against  my  will  because  my  head 
must  have  a  rest."1  In  the  Electoral  accounts  25  Eimer  of 
wine  are  set  down  for  the  period  of  Luther's  stay  at  the 
Coburg  ;2  seeing  that  he  and  two  companions  spent  only 
173  days  there,  our  Protestant  friends  have  hastened  to 
allege  "  the  frequent  visits  he  received  "  in  the  Coburg.3 
It  is  true  that  he  had  a  good  many  visitors  during  the  latter 
part  of  his  stay.  However  this  may  be,  the  illness  showed 
itself  as  early  as  May,  1530.  His  own  diagnosis  here  is  no 
less  unsatisfactory  than  the  accounts  concerning  the  other 
maladies  from  which  he  suffered.  No  doubt  the  malady 
was  chiefly  nervous. 

In  October  of  that  same  year,  Luther  protested  that  he 
had  been  "  very  abstemious  in  all  things  "4  at  the  Coburg, 
and  Veit  Dietrich,  his  assistant  at  that  time,  wrote  in  the 
same  sense  on  July  4  :  "I  carefully  observed  that  he  did 
not  transgress  any  of  the  rules  of  diet."5  His  indisposition 
showed  itself  in  unbearable  noises  in  the  head,  at  times 
accompanied  by  extreme  sensitiveness  to  light.6  Luther 
was  convinced  that  the  trouble  was  due  to  the  qualities  of 
the  strong  wines  provided  for  him  at  the  castle — or,  possibly, 
to  the  devil.  "  We  are  very  well  off,"  he  says  in  June,  1530, 
"  and  live  finely,  but  for  almost  a  month  past  I  have  been 
plagued  not  only  with  noises  but  with  actual  thundering 

1  To  Link  at  Nuremberg,  January  15,  1531,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  8, 
p.  345. 

2  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  649,  n.  195.  3  Ibid. 

4  To  Hans  Honold  at  Augsburg,  October  2,  1530,  "  Werke,"  Erl. 
ed.,  54,  p.  196  ("  Brief  wechsel,"  8,  p.  275). 

5  To  Agricola.  Letter  published  by  Kawerau  in  the  "Zeitschr.  fur 
kirchl.  Wissenschaft  und  kirchl.  Leben,"  1880,  p.  50.  Cp.  F.  Kiichen- 
meister,  "  Luthers  Krankengesch.,"  1881,  p.  67  ff. 

6  Cp.  Kawerau,  "  Etwas  vom  kranken  Luther  "  (see  above,  p.  299, 
n.  1),  p.  308  ff. 


318  LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

in  my  head,  due,  perhaps,  to  the  wine,  perhaps  to  the 
malice  of  Satan."1  Veit  Dietrich  inclined  strongly  to  the 
latter  view.  He  tells  us  of  the  apparition  of  a  "  flaming 
fiery  serpent  "  under  which  form  the  devil  had  manifested 
himself  to  Luther  during  his  solitude  in  the  Coburg  :  "  On 
the  following  day  he  was  plagued  with  troublesome  noises 
in  his  head  ;  thus  the  greater  part  of  what  he  suffered  was 
the  work  of  the  devil." 2  Luther  himself  complained  in  August 
of  a  fresh  indisposition,  this  time  scarcely  due  to  nerves, 
which,  according  to  him,  was  the  result  either  of  wine,  or 
of  the  devil.  "  I  am  troubled  with  a  sore  throat,  such  as  I 
never  had  before  ;  possibly  the  strong  wine  has  increased 
the  inflammation,  or  perhaps  it  is  a  buffet  of  Satan  [2  Cor. 
xii.  7]."3  Four  days  later  he  wrote  again  :  "  My  head  still 
buzzes  and  my  throat  is  worse  than  ever."4  In  the  following 
month  some  improvement  showed  itself,  and  even  before 
this  he  had  days  free  from  suffering  ;  still,  after  quitting 
the  Coburg,  he  still  complained  of  incessant  headache 
caused,  as  he  thought,  by  the  "  old  wine."  When  all  is  said, 
however,  it  does  seem  that  later  controversialists  were  wrong 
in  so  confidently  attributing  his  illness  in  the  Coburg  merely 
to  excessive  love  of  the  bottle. 

Luther  often  vaunted  the  wholesome  effects  of  beer.  In 
a  letter  to  Katey  dated  February  1,  1546,  he  extols  the 
aperient  qualities  of  Naumburg  beer. 5  In  another  to  Jonas, 
dated  May  15,  1542,  he  speaks  of  the  good  that  beer  had 
done  in  relieving  his  sufferings  from  stone  ;  beer  was  to  be 
preferred  to  wine  ;  much  benefit  was  also  to  be  derived  from 
a  strict  diet.6 

All  these  traits  from  Luther's  private  life,  taken  as  a 
whole,  may  be  considered  to  confirm  the  opinion  expressed 
above,  p.  311  f.,  regarding  the  charges  which  may  stand 
against  him  and  those  of  which  he  is  to  be  acquitted. 

1  To  Gabriel  Z  willing  at  Torgau,  June  19,  1530,  "  Brief  wechsel/' 
8,  p.  11. 

2  In  the  letter  quoted  above. 

3  To  Melanchthon,  August  24,  1530,  "  Briefwechsel,"  8,  p.  204  f. 

4  To  Justus  Jonas,  August  28,  1530,  ibid.,  p.  237. 

5  Letters,  ed.  De  Wette,  5,  p.  784.    , 

6  Ibid.,  p.  470. 


CHAPTER    XVIII 

LUTHER   AND    MELANCHTHON 

1.   Melanehthon  in  the  Service  of  Lutheranism,  1518-30 

When  Melanehthon  was  called  upon  to  represent  Lutheran- 
ism officially  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  while  the  real  head  of 
the  innovation  remained  in  the  seclusion  of  the  Coburg  (vol. 
ii.,  p.  384),  he  had  already  been  in  the  closest  spiritual 
relation  with  Luther  for  twelve  years. 

The  talented  young  man  who  had  given  promise  of  the 
highest  achievements  in  the  domain  of  humanism,  and  who 
had  taken  up  his  residence  at  Wittenberg  with  the  intention 
of  devoting .  his  academic  career  more  particularly  to  the 
Greek  classics,  soon  fell  under  Luther's  influence.  Luther 
not  only  loved  and  admired  him,  but  was,  all  along,  deter- 
mined to  exploit,  in  the  interests  of  his  new  theology,  the 
rare  gifts  of  a  friend  and  colleague  thirteen  years  his  junior. 
Melanehthon  not  only  taught  the  classics,  but,  after  a 
while,  announced  a  series  of  lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  Titus. 
It  was  due  to  Luther  that  he  thus  gave  himself  up  more 
to  divinity  and  eventually  cultivated  it  side  by  side  with 
humanism.  "  With  all  his  might  "  Luther  "  drove  him  to 
study  theology."1  Melanchthon's  "Loci  communes"  or 
elements  of  theology,  a  scholastically  conceived  work  on 
the  main  doctrines  of  Lutheranism,  was  one  of  the  results 
of  Luther's  efforts  to  profit  by  the  excellent  gifts  of  the 
colleague — who  he  was  convinced  had  been  sent  him  by 
Providence — in  formulating  his  theology  and  in  demolishing 
the  olden  doctrine  of  the  Church.  The  "  Loci  "  proved  to  be 
a  work  of  fundamental  importance  for  Luther's  cause.2 

The   character   of   the   "  Loci,"    at   once   methodic   and 

1  G.  Kawerau,  "  Luthers  Stellung  zu  den  Zeitgenossen  Erasmus, 
Zwingli  und  Melanehthon  "  (reprinted  from  "  Deutsch- evangel.  Blatter," 
1906,  Hft.  1-3),  p.  31. 

2  "  Loci  Communes  Phil.  Melanchthons  in  ihrer  TJrgestalt  nach 
G.  L.  Plitt,"  ed.  (with  commentaries)  Th.  Kolde,  3rd  ed.,  1900. 

319 


320         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

positive,  indicated  the  lines  on  which  Melanchthon  as  a 
theologian  was  afterwards  to  proceed.  He  invented  nothing, 
his  aim  being  rather  to  clothe  Luther's  ideas  in  clear,  com- 
prehensive and  scholastic  language — so  far  as  this  could  be 
done.  His  carefully  chosen  wording,  together  with  his 
natural  dislike  for  exaggeration  or  unnecessary  harshness 
of  expression,  helped  him  in  many  instances  so  to  tone  down 
what  was  offensive  in  Luther's  doctrines  and  opinions  as 
to  render  them,  in  their  humanistic  dress,  quite  acceptable 
to  many  scholars.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  all  his 
polish  and  graceful  rhetoric  often  merely  served  to  conceal 
the  lack  of  ideas,  or  the  contradictions.  The  great  name  he 
had  won  for  himself  in  the  field  of  humanism  by  his  numer- 
ous publications,  which  vied  with  those  of  Reuchlin  and 
Erasmus — his  friends  called  him  "  praeceptor  Germaniae  " — 
went  to  enhance  the  importance  of  his  theological  works 
amongst  those  who  cither  sided  with  Luther  or  were 
wavering. 

Earlier  Relations  of  Luther  with  Melanchthon. 

As  professor,  Melanchthon  had  at  the  outset  an  audience 
of  from  five  to  six  hundred,  and,  later,  his  hearers  numbered 
as  many  as  1500.  He  was  perfectly  aware  that  this  was 
due  to  the  renown  which  the  University  of  Wittenberg  had 
acquired  through  Luther,  and  the  success  of  their  common 
enterprise  bound  him  still  more  closely  to  the  ecclesiastical 
innovation.  To  the  very  end  of  his  life  he  laboured  in  the 
interests  of  Lutheranism  in  the  lecture-hall,  at  religious 
disputations,  by  his  printed  works,  his  memoranda,  and  his 
letters,  by  gaining  new  friends  and  by  acting  as  inter- 
mediary when  dissension  threatened. — In  his  translation 
of  the  Bible  Luther  found  a  most  willing  and  helpful 
adviser  in  this  expert  linguist.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  he 
never  took  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity  or  showed  the 
slightest  desire  to  be  made  equal  to  his  colleagues  in  this 
respect.  Unlike  the  rest  of  his  Wittenberg  associates,  he 
had  not  been  an  ecclesiastic  previous  to  leaving  Catholicism, 
nor  would  he  ever  consent  to  undertake  the  task  of  preacher 
in  the  Lutheran  Church,  or  to  receive  Lutheran  Orders, 
though  for  some  years  he,  on  Sundays,  was  wont  to  expound 
in  Latin  the  Gospels  to  the  students  ;  these  homilies 
resulted  in  his  Postils.     When  Luther  at  last,   in   1520, 


MELANCHTHON  321 

persuaded  him  to  marry  the  daughter  of  the  Burgomaster 
of  Wittenberg,  he  thereby  succeeded  in  chaining  to  the 
scene  of  his  own  labours  this  valuable  and  industrious  little 
man  with  all  his  vast  treasures  of  learning.  At  the  end  of 
the  year  Melanchthon,  under  the  pseudonym  of  Didymus 
Faventinus,  composed  his  first  defence  of  Luther,  in  which 
he,  the  Humanist,  entirely  vindicated  against  Aristotle  and 
the  Universities  his  attacks  upon  the  rights  of  natural 
reason.1 

As  early  as  December  14,  1518,  Luther,  under  the  charm 
of  his  friend's  talents,  had  spoken  of  him  in  a  letter  to  Johann 
Reuchlin  asa"  wonderful  man  in  whom  almost  everything 
is  supernatural."2  On  September  17,  1523,  he  said  to  his 
friend  Theobald  Billicanus  of  Nordlingen  :  "I  value  Philip 
as  I  do  myself,  not  to  speak  of  the  fact  that  he  shames,  nay, 
excels  me  by  his  learning  and  the  integrity  of  his  life  ('  erudi- 
tione  et  integritate  vitae  ')."3  Five  years  later  Luther  penned 
the  following  testimony  in  his  favour  in  the  Preface  at  the 
commencement  of  Melanchthon's  Exposition  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians  (1528-29)  :  "  He  proceeds  [in  his  writings] 
quietly  and  politely,  digs  and  plants,  sows  and  waters, 
according  to  the  gifts  which  God  has  given  him  in  rich 
measure  "  ;  he  himself,  on  the  other  hand,  was  "  very 
stormy  and  pugnacious  "  in  his  works,  but  he  was  "  the 
rough  hewer,  who  has  to  cut  out  the  track  and  prepare  the 
way."4  In  the  Preface  to  the  edition  of  his  own  Latin 
works  in  1545  he  praises  Melanchthon's  "  Loci  "  and 
classes  them  amongst  the  "  methodic  books  "  of  which 
every  theologian  and  bishop  would  do  well  to  make  use  ; 
"  how  much  the  Lord  has  effected  by  means  of  this  instru- 
ment which  He  has  sent  me,  not  merely  in  worldly  learning 
but  also  in  theology,  is  demonstrated  by  his  works."5 

The  extravagant  praise  accorded  by  Luther  to  his  fellow- 
worker  was  returned  by  the  other  in  equal  measure.  When 
deprived  of  Luther's  company  during  the  latter' s  involuntary 
stay  at  the  Wartburg,   he  wrote  as  follows  to  a  friend  : 

1  "Corp.  ref.,"  1,  pp.  286-358,  more  particularly  343.  Cp.  F. 
Paulsen,  "  Gesch.  des  gelehrten  Unterrichts,"  l2,  1896,  p.  186  f.  Further 
particulars  of  the  work  will  be  found  amongst  the  statements  con- 
cerning Luther's  relations  with  the  schools  (vol.  v.,  xxxv.  3). 

2  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  322. 

3  Ibid.  4,  p.  230. 

4  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  2,  p.  68  ;    "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  7,  p.  493. 

5  "  Opp.  lat,  var.,"  1,  pp.  15.  18. 

III.— Y 


322         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

44  The  torch  of  Israel  was  lighted  by  him,  and  should  it  be 
extinguished  what  hope  would  remain  to  us  ?  .  .  .  Ah, 
could  I  but  purchase  by  my  death  the  life  of  him  who  is  at 
this  time  the  most  divine  being  upon  earth  !  "*  A  little  later 
he  says  in  the  same  style  :  "  Our  Elias  has  left  us  ;  we  wait 
and  hope  in  him.  My  longing  for  him  torments  me  daily."2 
Luther  was  not  unwilling  to  figure  as  Elias  and  wrote  to  his 
friend  that  he  (Melanchthon)  excelled  him  in  the  Evangel, 
and  should  he  himself  perish,  would  succeed  him  as  an 
Eliseus  with  twice  the  spirit  of  Elias. 

We  cannot  explain  these  strange  mutual  encomiums 
merely  by  the  love  of  exaggeration  usual  with  the  Human- 
ists. Luther  as  a  rule  did  not  pander  to  the  taste  of  the 
Humanists,  and  as  for  Melanchthon,  he  really  entertained 
the  utmost  respect  and  devotion  for  the  "  venerable  father  " 
and  "  most  estimable  doctor  "  until,  at  last,  difference  of 
opinion  and  character  brought  about  a  certain  unmistak- 
able coolness  between  the  two  men. 

Melanchthon,  albeit  with  great  moderation  and  reserve, 
never  quitted  the  reformer's  standpoint  as  regards  either 
theory  or  practice.  Many  Catholic  contemporaries  were 
even  of  opinion  that  he  did  more  harm  to  the  Church  by  his 
prudence  and  apparent  moderation  than  Luther  by  all  his 
storming.  His  soft-spoken  manner  and  advocacy  of  peace 
did  not,  however,  hinder  him  from  voicing  with  the  utmost 
bitterness  his  hatred  of  everything  Catholic,  and  his  white- 
hot  prejudice  in  favour  of  the  innovations.  He  wrote,  for 
instance,  at  the  end  of  1525  in  an  official  memorandum 
("  de  iure  reformandi  ")  intended  for  the  evangelical  Princes 
and  Estates  that,  even  should  "  war -and  scandal  "  ensue, 
still  they  must  not  desist  from  the  introduction  and  main- 
tenance of  the  new  religious  system,  for  our  cause  "  touches 
the  honour  of  Christ,"  and  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Faith  alone  in  particular,  so  he  says,  "  will  not  suffer  the 
contrary."  Why  heed  the  complaints  of  the  Catholics  and 
the  Empire  ?  Christ  witnessed  "  the  destruction  of  the 
Kingdom  of  the  Jews  "  and  yet  proceeded  with  His  work. 
According  to  this  memorandum  there  was  no  need  of  wait- 
ing for  the  Pope's  permission  to  "  reform  "  things  ;  the 
people  are  everywhere  "  bound  to  accept  the  doctrine  [of 

1  To  Spalatin,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  1,  p.  417. 

2  Cp.  ibid.,  pp.  448  and  451,  where  he  again  calls  Luther  Elias  in 
letters  written  in  1521  to  Spalatin. 


MELANCHTHON  323 

Luther]  "  while  evangelical  Princes  and  authorities  are  "  not 
bound  to  obey  the  edicts  [of  the  Empire]  ;  hence,  in  fairness, 
they  cannot  be  scolded  as  schismatics."1  For  such  a  ruth- 
less invitation  to  overturn  the  old-established  order  Melanch- 
thon  sought  to  reassure  himself  and  others  by  alleging  the 
"  horrible  abuses  "  of  Popery  which  it  had  become  necessary 
to  remove  ;  the  war  was  to  be  only  against  superstition  and 
idolatry,  the  tyranny  of  the  ecclesiastical  system  challenging 
resistance.2 

Then  and  ever  afterwards  the  Pope  appeared  to  him  in 
the  light  of  Antichrist,  with  whom  no  reconciliation  was 
possible  unless  indeed  he  yielded  to  Luther. 

In  the  same  year  in  which  he  wrote  the  above  his  corre- 
spondence begins  to  betray  the  anxiety  and  apprehension 
which  afterwards  never  ceased  to  torture  him,  due  partly 
to  what  he  witnessed  of  the  results  of  the  innovations, 
partly  to  his  own  natural  timidity.  The  Peasant  War  of 
1525  plunged  him  into  dismay.  There  he  saw  to  what 
lengths  the  abuse  of  evangelical  freedom  could  lead,  once 
the  passions  of  the  people  were  let  loose.  At  the  express 
wish  of  the  Elector  Ludwig  of  the  Palatinate  he  wrote  in 
vigorous  and  implacable  language  a  refutation  of  the 
Peasant  Articles  ;  the  pen  of  the  scholar  was,  however, 
powerless  to  stay  the  movement  which  was  carrying  away 
the  people. 

A  work  of  much  greater  importance  fell  to  him  when  he  was 
invited  to  take  part  in  the  Visitation  of  the  churches  in  the 
Saxon  Electorate,  then  in  a  state  of  utter  chaos  ;  it  was 
then  that  he  wrote,  in  1527,  the  Visitation-booklet  for  the 
use  of  the  ecclesiastical  inspectors. 

In  the  directions  he  therein  gave  for  the  examination  of 
pastors  and  preachers  he  modified  to  such  an  extent  the 
asperities  of  the  Lutheran  principles  that  he  was  accused  of 
reacting  in  the  direction  of  Catholicism,  particularly  by  the 
stress  he  laid  on  the  motive  of  fear  of  God's  punishments, 
on  greater  earnestness  in  penance  and^on  the  keeping  of 
the  "  law."  Luther's  preaching  of  the  glad  Evangel  had 
dazzled  people  and  made  them  forgetful  of  the  "  law  "  and 
Commandments.  According  to  Melanchthon  this  was  in 
great  part  the  fault  of  the  Lutheran  preachers. 

1  "  Corp.  ref.,"  1,  p.  763.    To  the  Elector  of  Saxony. 

2  Ibid. 


324         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

"  In  their  addresses  to  the  people,"  he  complains  in  1526, 
"  they  barely  mention  the  fear  of  God.  Yet  this,  and  not  faith 
alone,  is  what  they  ought  to  teach.  .  .  .  On  the  other  hand,  they 
are  all  the  more  zealous  in  belabouring  the  Pope."  Besides  this 
they  are  given  to  fighting  with  each  other  in  the  pulpit  ;  the 
authorities  ought  to  see  that  only  the  "  more  reasonable  are 
allowed  to  preach  and  that  the  others  hold  their  tongues,  accord- 
ing to  Paul's  injunction."1  "They  blame  our  opponents,"  he 
writes  of  these  same  preachers  in  1528,  "  for  merely  serving  their 
bellies  by  their  preaching,  but  they  themselves  appear  only  to 
work  for  their  own  glory,  so  greatly  do  they  allow  themselves  to 
be  carried  away  by  anger."2 

"  The  depravity  of  the  country  population  "  he  declares  in  a 
letter  of  the  same  year  to  be  intolerable  ;  it  must  necessarily 
call  down  the  heavy  hand  of  God's  chastisement.  "  The  deepest 
hatred  of  the  Gospel  "  was,  however,  to  be  found  "  in  those  who 
play  the  part  of  our  patrons  and  protectors."  Here  he  is  re- 
ferring to  certain  powerful  ones  ;  he  also  laments  "  the  great 
indifference  of  the  Court."  All  this  shows  the  end  to  be  approach- 
ing :  "  Believe  me,  the  Day  of  Judgment  is  not  far  distant." 
"  When  I  contemplate  the  conditions  of  our  age,  I  am  troubled 
beyond  belief."3 

Regarding  his  recommendation  of  penance  and  confession 
during  the  Visitations,  a  conversation  which  he  relates  to 
Camerarius  as  having  taken  place  at  the  table  of  a  highly  placed 
patron  of  the  innovations,  is  very  characteristic.  A  distinguished 
guest  having  complained  of  this  recommendation,  the  patron 
chimed  in  with  the  remark,  that  the  people  must  "  hold  tight  to 
the  freedom  they  had  secured,  otherwise  they  would  again  be 
reduced  to  servitude  by  the  theologians "  ;  the  latter  were 
little  by  little  re-introducing  the  old  traditions.  Thus  you  see, 
Melanchthon  adds,  "  how,  not  only  our  enemies,  but  even  those 
who  are  supposed  to  be  favourably  bent,  judge  of  us."4  Yet 
Melanchthon  had  merely  required  a  general  sort  of  confession  as 
a  voluntary  preparation  for  Holy  Communion. 

Melanchthon  was  also  openly  in  favour  of  the  penalty  of 
excommunication ;  in  order  to  keep  a  watch  on  the  preachers  he 
introduced  the  system  of  Superintendents. 

In  the  matter  of  marriage  contracts  his  experience  led  him  to 
the  following  conclusion  :  "  It  is  clearly  expedient  that  the 
marriage  bond  should  be  tightened  rather  than  loosened  "  ;  in 
this  the  older  Church  had  been  in  the  right.  "  You  know,"  he 
writes,  "  what  blame  ('  quantum  sceleris  ')  our  party  has  incurred 
by  its  wrong  treatment  of  marriage  matters.     All  the  preachers 

1  "  Corp.  ref.,"  1,  p.  821,  memorandum  for  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  995.    To  Balth.  During,  about  September,  1528. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  981.  To  Fr.  Myconius,  June  5,  1528  :  "  Ego  sic  angor, 
ut  nihil  supra  vel  cogitari  possit,  quum  considero  horum  temporum 
conditionem."  Similar  statements  of  Melanchthon's  in  Dollinger, 
"  Die  Reformation,"  1,  p.  366  ff. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  938.    Letter  of  September  13,  1528. 


MELANCHTHON  325 

everywhere  ought  to  exert  themselves  to  put  an  end  to  these 
scandals.  But  many  do  nothing  but  publicly  calumniate  the 
monks  and  the  authorities  in  their  discourses."  And  yet  in  the 
same  letter  he  sanctions  the  re-marriage  of  a  party  divorced  for 
some  unknown  reason,  a  sanction  he  had  hitherto  been  unwilling 
to  grant  for  fear  of  the  example  being  followed  by  others  ;  he 
only  stipulates  that  his  sanction  is  not  to  be  announced  publicly  ; 
the  sermons  must,  on  the  contrary,  censure  the  license  which  is 
becoming  the  fashion.1 

Any  open  and  vigorous  opposition  to  Luther's  views,  so 
detrimental  to  the  inviolability  of  the  marriage  tie,  was  not 
in  accordance  with  Melanchthon's  nature.  He,  like  Luther, 
condemned  the  religious  vows  on  the  strange  ground  that 
those  who  took  them 'were  desirous  of  gaining  merit  in  the 
sight  of  God.  Hence  he  too  came  to  invite  nuns  to  marry.2 
And  yet,  at  the  same  time,  he,  like  Luther,  again  declared 
virginity  to  be  a  "  higher  gift,"  one  which  even  ranked 
above  marriage  ("  virginitas  donum  est  yraestantius  con- 
iugio  ").3 

He  was  gradually  drawn  more  and  more  into  questions 
concerning  the  public  position  of  the  Lutherans  and  had  to 
undertake  various  journeys  on  this  account,  because  Luther, 
being  under  the  Ban,  was  unable  to  leave  the  Electorate, 
and  because  his  violent  temper  did  not  suit  him  for  delicate 
negotiations.  Melanchthon  erred  rather  on  the  side  of 
timidity. 

When,  in  1528,  in  consequence  of  the  Pack  business, 
there  seemed  a  danger  of  war  breaking  out  on  account  of 
religion,  he  became  the  prey  of  great  anxiety.  He  feared 
for  the  good  name  and  for  the  evangelical  cause  should 
bloody  dissensions  arise  in  the  Empire  through  the  fault 
of  the  Princes  who  favoured  Luther.  On  May  18  he  wrote 
to  the  Elector  Johann  on  no  account  to  commence  war  on 
behalf  of  the  Evangel,  especially  as  the  Emperor  had  made 
proposals  of  peace.  "  I  must  take  into  consideration,  for 
instance,  what  a  disgrace  it  would  be  to  the  Holy  Gospel 
were  your  Electoral  Highness  to  commence  war  without 
first  having  tried  every  means  for  securing  peace."4    There 

1  "Corp.  ref.,"  1,  p.  1013.  To  Myconius,  December  1,  1528: 
"  Meum  scriptum  ostendas  consulibus  ut  permittant  nubere  mulierculcB." 

2  Cp.  ibid.,  p.  839.     "  Iudicium  "  of  1526. 

3  "  Apologia  confess.  August.,"  art.  23.  "  Symbolische  Biicher,"  10 
ed.  Muller-Kolde,  p.  242. 

4  "  Corp.  ref.,  '  1.  p.  979.     Cp.  "Luthers  Briefwecnsel,"  6,  p.  274. 


326         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

can  be  no  doubt  that  the  terrible  experience  of  the  Peasant 
War  made  him  cautious,  but  we  must  not  forget,  that  such 
considerations  did  not  hinder  him  from  declaring  frequently 
later,  particularly  previous  to  the  Schmalkalden  War,  that 
armed  resistance  was  allowable,  nay,  called  for,  nor  even 
from  .going  so  far  as  to  address  the  people  in  language  every 
whit  as  warlike  as  that  of  Luther.1  In  the  case  of  the 
hubbub  arising  out  of  the  famous  forged  documents  con- 
nected with  the  name  of  Pack,  Luther,  however,  seemed  to 
him  to  be  going  much  too  far.  "  Duke  George  could  prove 
with  a  clear  conscience  that  it  was  a  question  of  a  mere 
forgery  and  of  a  barefaced  deception,"2  got  up  to  the  detri- 
ment of  the  Catholic  party.  On  Luther's  persisting  in  his 
affirmation  that  a  league  existed  for  the  destruction  of  the 
Evangelicals,  and  that  the  "  enemies  of  the  Evangel " 
really  cherished  "  this  evil  intention  and  will,"3  Duke 
George  did,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  take  him  severely  to  task 
in  a  work  to  which  Luther  at  once  replied  in  another  teeming 
with  unseemly  abuse.4 

Melanchthon,  like  the  rest  of  Luther's  friends  who  shared 
his  opinion,  saw  their  hopes  of  peace  destroyed.  They  read 
with  lively  disapproval  Luther's  charges  against  the  Duke, 
who  was  described  as  a  thief,  as  one  "  eaten  up  by  Moabitish 
pride  and  arrogance,"  who  played  the  fool  in  thus  raging 
against  Christ ;  as  one  possessed  of  the  devil,  who  in  spite 
of  all  his  denials  meditated  the  worst  against  the  Lutherans, 
who  allowed  himself  to  be  served  in  his  Chancery  by  a  gang 
of  donkeys  and  who,  like  all  his  friends,  was  devil-ridden. 
Concerning  the  impression  created,  Melanchthon  wrote  to 
Myconius  that  Luther  had  indeed  tried  to  exercise  greater 
restraint  than  usual,  but  that  "  he  ought  to  have  defended 
himself  more  becomingly.  All  of  us  who  have  read  his 
pages  stand  aghast ;  unfortunately  such  writings  are 
popular,  they  pass  from  hand  to  hand  and  are  studied, 
being  much  thought  of  by  fools  ('  praedicantur  a  stultis  ')."5 

1  See  below,  xx.  4,  his  Preface  to  his  new  edition  of  Luther's 
"  Warnunge  an  seine  lieben  Deudschen." 

2  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  113  f.  3  Ibid. 

4  "  Von  heimliche  und  gestolen  Brieffen  "  ("  Werke,"  Weim.  ed., 
30,  2,  p.  1  ff .  ;  Erl.  ed.,  31,  p.  1  ff.).  The  appended  exposition  of 
Psalm  vii.  probably  told  greatly  on  many,  more  particularly  on  pious 
readers. 

5  On  January  9,  1529,  "Corp.  ref.,"  1,  p.  1023.  Cp.  KQstlin- 
Kawerau,  2,  p.  115. 


MELANCHTHON  327 

It  was  only  with  difficulty  that  he  and  his  Witten- 
berg friends  dissuaded  Luther  from  again  rushing  into 
the  fray. 

In  1529  Melanchthon,   at  Luther's  desire,   accompanied 
the  Elector  of  Saxony  to  the  Diet  of  Spires.     The  protest 
there  made  by  the   Lutheran  Princes  and  Estates  again 
caused    him    great    concern    as    he    foresaw   the    unhappy 
consequences  to  Germany  of  the  rupture  it  betokened,  and 
the  danger  in  which  it  involved  the  Protestant  cause.    The 
interference  of  the  Zwinglians  in  German  affairs  also  filled 
him  with  apprehension,  for  of  their  doctrines,  so  far  as  they 
were  opposed  to  those  of  Wittenberg,  he  cherished  a  deep 
dislike  imbibed  from  Luther.    The  political  alliance  which, 
at  Spires,  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  sought  to  promote  between 
the  two  parties,  appeared  to  him  highly  dangerous  from  the 
religious  point  of  view.     He  now  regretted  that  he  had 
formerly  allowed  himself  to  be  more  favourably  disposed 
to  Zwinglianism  by  the  Landgrave.     In  his  letters  he  was 
quite  open  in  the  expression  of  his  annoyance  at  the  results 
of  the  Diet  of  Spires,  though  he  himself  had  there  done  his 
best  to  increase  the  falling  away  from  Catholicism,  and,  with 
words  of  peace  on  his  lips,   to  render  the  estrangement 
irremediable.     In  his  first  allusion  to  the  now  famous  protest 
he  speaks  of  it  as  a  "  horrid  thing."1     His  misgivings  in- 
creased after  his  return  home,  and  he  looked  forward  to  the 
future  with  anxiety.     He  was  pressing  in  his  monitions 
against  any  alliance  with  the  Zwinglians.    On  May  17,  1529, 
he  wrote  to  Hieronymus  Baumgartner,  a  member  of  the 
Nuremberg  Council :   "  Some  of  us  do  not  scorn  an  alliance 
with   the    [Zwinglian]    Strasburgers,  but   do   you   do  your 
utmost  to  prevent  so  shameful  a  thing.  "2     "  The  pains  of 
hell  have  encompassed  me,"  so  he  describes  to  a  friend  his 
anxieties.    We  have  delayed  too  long,  "  I  would  rather  die 
than  see  ours  defiled  by  an  alliance  with  the  Zwinglians."3 
"  I  know  that  the  Zwinglian  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament  of 

1  To  his  friend  Camerarius  from  Spires,  April  21,  1529,  "  Corp.  ref.," 
],  p.  1060,  "  Habes  rem  horribilem." 

2  "  Corp.  ref.,"  1,  p.  1070. 

3  To  Justus  Jonas,  June  14,  1529,  p.  1076  ;  "  Una  res  nocuit  nobis, 
quam  diutius  procrastinati  sumus,  cum  postularetur  a  nobis,  ut  dam- 
naremus  Zinglianos.  Hinc  ego  in  tantam  incidi  perturbationem,  ut 
mortem  oppetere  malim,  quam  has  miserias  ferre.  Omnes  dolores  interni 
(read  inferni)  oppresserunt  me.  Sed  tamen  spero  Christum  remedia  his 
rebus  ostensurum  esse." 


328         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  is  untrue  and  not  to  be 
answered  for  before  God."1 

After  he  had  assisted  Luther  in  the  religious  discussion 
held  at  Marburg  between  him  and  Zwingli  in  the  autumn  of 
1529,  and  had  witnessed  the  fruitless  termination  of  the 
conference,  he  again  voiced  his  intense  grief  at  the  discord 
rampant  among  the  innovators,  and  the  hopelessness  of 
any  effort  to  reunite  Christians.  "  I  am  quite  unable  to 
mitigate  the  pains  I  suffer  on  account  of  the  position  of 
ecclesiastical  affairs,"  so  he  complains  to  Camerarius.  "  Not 
a  day  passes  that  I  do  not  long  for  death.  But  enough  of 
this,  for  I  do  not  dare  to  describe  in  this  letter  the  actual 
state  of  things."2 

Luther  was  much  less  down-hearted  at  that  time,  having 
just  succeeded  in  overcoming  a  persistent  attack  of  anxiety 
and  remorse  of  conscience.  His  character,  so  vastly  different 
from  that  of  his  friend,  now,  after  the  victory  he  had  won 
over  his  "  temptations,"  was  more  than  ever  inclined  to 
violence  and  defiance.  Luther,  such  at  least  is  his  own 
account,  refused  to  entertain  any  fear  concerning  the  success 
of  his  cause,  which  was  God's,  in  spite  of  the  storm  threaten- 
ing at  Augsburg. 

Melanchthon  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  1530. 

At  Augsburg  the  most  difficult  task  imaginable  was 
assigned  to  Melanchthon,  as  the  principal  theological 
representative  of  Lutheranism.  His  attitude  at  the  Diet 
was  far  from  frank  and  logical. 

He  made  his  own  position  quite  puzzling  by  his  vain 
endeavour  to  unite  things  incapable  of  being  united,  and  to 
win,  by  actual  or  apparent  concessions,  temporary  tolera- 
tion for  the  new  religious  party  within  the  Christian  Church 
to  which  the  Empire  belonged.  Owing  to  his  lack  of  theo- 
logical perspicuity  he  does  not  appear  to  have  seen  as  clearly 
as  Luther  how  hopeless  was  the  rupture  between  old  and 
new.  He  still  had  hopes  that  the  Catholics  would  gradually 
come  over  to  the  Wittenberg  standpoint  when  once  an 
agreement  had  been  reached  regarding  certain  outward  and 
subordinate  matters,  as  he  thought  them.     "  Real  unifica- 

1  To  Philip  of  Hesse,  June  22,  1529,  "  Corp.  ret.,"  1,  p.  1078.  Cp. 
p.  1075  seq. 

2  On  November  14,  1529. 


MELANCHTHON  329 

tion,"  as  Johannes  Janssen  says  very  truly,  "  was  altogether 
out  of  the  question."  For  the  point  at  issue  in  this  tremen- 
dous ecclesiastical  contest  was  not  this  or  that  religious 
dogma,  this  or  that  addition  or  alteration  in  Church  dis- 
cipline ;  it  was  not  even  a  question  merely  of  episcopal 
jurisdiction  and  the  sense  in  which  this  was  understood  and 
allowed  by  Protestant  theologians  ;  what  was  fundamentally 
at  stake  was  no  less  than  the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Church,  and  the  recogni- 
tion or  non-recognition  of  the  Church  as  a  Divine  and 
human  institution  of  grace,  resting  upon  the  perpetual 
sacrifice  and  priesthood.  The  Protestants  rejected  the 
dogma  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  and  set  up  for  them- 
selves a  novel  ecclesiastical  system,  they  also  rejected  the 
perpetual  sacrifice  in  that  they  denied  the  doctrine  of  the 
perpetual  priesthood.  .  .  .  Hence  the  attempts  at  recon- 
ciliation made  at  Augsburg,  as  indeed  all  later  attempts, 
were  bound  to  come  to  nothing."1 

In  the  "  Confession  of  Augsburg,"  where  the  author  shows 
himself  a  past-master  in  the  art  of  presentation,  Melanch- 
thon  presents  the  Lutheran  doctrine  under  the  form  most 
acceptable  to  the  opposite  party,  calculated,  too,  to  prove 
its  connection  with  the  teaching  of  the  Roman  Church  as 
vouched  for  by  the  Fathers.  He  passes  over  in  silence 
certain  capital  elements  of  Lutheran  dogma,  for  instance, 
man's  unfreedom  in  the  performance  of  moral  acts  pleasing 
to  God,  likewise  predestination  to  hell,2  and  even  the 
rejection  on  principle  of  the  Papal  Primacy,  the  denial  of 
Indulgences  and  of  Purgatory.  A  Catholic  stamp  was  im- 
pressed on  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  so  as  to  impart  to 
it  the  semblance  of  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  ; 
even  in  the  doctrine  of  justification,  any  clear  distinction 
between  the  new  teaching  of  the  justifying  power  of  faith 
alone  and  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  faith  working  by  love 
("  fides  formata  charitate ")  is  wanting.  Where,  in  the 
second  part,  he  deals  with  certain  traditions  and  abuses 
which  he  holds  to  have  been  the  real  cause  of  the  schism, 
he  persists  in  minimising  the  hindrances  to  mutual  agree- 
ment, or  at  least  to  toleration  of  the  new  religious  party. 
According  to  this  statement,  all  that  Protestants  actually 

1  "  Hist,  of  the  German  People  "  (Eng.  Trans.),  5,  p.  262  f. 

2  See  Luther's  own  doctrine,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  223  ff.,  265  ff.,  291  ff. 


330         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

demanded  was  permission  to  receive  communion  under  both 
kinds,  the  marriage  of  priests,  the  abolition  of  private 
masses,  obligatory  confession,  fasts,  religious  vows,  etc. 
The  bishops,  who  were  also  secular  princes,  were  to  retain 
their  jurisdiction  as  is  expressely  stated  at  the  end,  though 
they  were  to  see  that  the  true  Gospel  was  preached  in  their 
dioceses,  and  not  to  interfere  with  the  removal  of  abuses.1 

In  the  specious  and  seductive  explanation  of  the  "  Con- 
fession," errors  which  had  never  been  advocated  by  the 
Church  were  refuted,  while  propositions  were  propounded 
at  great  length  which  had  never  been  questioned  by  her,  in 
both  cases  the  aim  being  to  win  over  the  reader  to  the 
author's  side  and  to  divert  his  attention  from  the  actual 
subject  of  the  controversy. 

Luther,  to  whom  the  work  was  submitted  when  almost 
complete,  allowed  it  to  pass  practically  without  amendment. 
He  saw  in  it  Melanchthon's  "  soft-spoken  manner,"  but 
nevertheless  gave  it  his  assent.2 

He  was  quite  willing  to  leave  the  matter  in  the  hands  of 
such  trusty  and  willing  friends  as  Melanchthon  and  his 
theological  assistants  at  Augsburg,  and  to  rely  on  the 
prudence  and  strength  of  the  Princes  and  Estates  of  the  new 
profession  there  assembled.  Secure  in  the  "  Gospel-proviso  " 
the  Coburg  hermit  was  confident  of  not  being  a  loser  even  in 
the  event  of  the  negotiations  not  issuing  favourably.  Christ 
was  not  to  be  deposed  from  His  throne  ;  to  "  Belial  "  He 
at  least  could  not  succumb.3 

The  "  Confession  of  Augsburg  "  was  not  at  all  intended 
in  the  first  instance  as  a  symbolic  book,  but  rather  as  a 
deed  presented  to  the  Empire  on  the  part  of  the  protesting 
Princes  and  Estates  to  demonstrate  their  innocence  and 
vindicate  their  right  to  claim  toleration.  During  the  years 
that  followed  it  was  likewise  regarded  as  a  mere  Profession 

1  Cp.  Kolde  in  J.  J.  Muller,  "  Symbolische  Biicher  "  10,  Introduction, 
p.  ix.:  "  There  was  no  mention  therein  of  the  Papal  power  and  it  was 
left  to  the  '  pleasure  of  His  Imperial  Majesty,  should  he  see  any  reason, 
to  attack  the  Papacy'  " — thus  the  Strasburg  envoys  in  1537  in  Kolde, 
"  Anal.  Lutherana,"  p.  297  ;  for,  as  Melanchthon  openly  admitted  to 
Luther,  the  Articles  must  be  accommodated  to  the  needs  of  the  moment. 

2  Kolde,  ibid.  ("  Symbol.  Biicher  "),  p.  viii.  f.  Luther  to  the 
Elector  of  Saxony,  May  15,  1530,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  54,  p.  145 
("  Brief wechsel,"  7,  p.  335)  :  "I  see  nothing  I  can  improve  upon  or 
alter,  nor  would  this  be  fitting  seeing  that  I  am  unable  to  proceed  so 
softly  and  quietly." 

3  On  the  "  Gospel-proviso,"  our  vol.  ii.,  p.  385  ff. 


MELANCHTHON  331 

on  the  part  of  the  Princes,  i.e.  as  a  theological  declaration 
standing  on  the  same  level  as  the  Schmalkalden  agreement, 
and  forming  the  bond  of  the  protesting  Princes  in  the 
presence  of  the  Empire  ;  each  one  was  still  free  to  amplify, 
explain,  or  modify  the  faith  within  his  own  territories. 
Finally,  however,  after  the  religious  settlement  at  Augsburg 
in  1555,  Melanchthon's  work  began  to  be  regarded  as  a 
binding  creed,  and  this  character  was  to  all  practical  purposes 
stamped  on  it  by  the  "  Concord  "  in  1580. x 

On  August  3,  1530,  a  "  Confutation  of  the  Confession  of 
Augsburg,"  composed  by  Catholic  theologians,  was  read 
before  the  Estates  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg.  The  Emperor 
called  upon  the  Protestants  to  return  to  the  Church, 
threatening,  in  case  of  refusal,  that  he,  as  the  "  Guardian 
and  Protector  "  of  Christendom,  would  institute  proceed- 
ings. Yet  in  spite  of  this  he  preferred  to  follow  a  milder 
course  of  action  and  to  seek  a  settlement  by  means  of  lengthy 
"  transactions." 

The  "  Reply  "  to  the  Confession  (later  known  as  "  Con- 
futatio  Confessionis  Augustance "),  which  was  the  result 
of  the  deliberations  of  a  Catholic  commission,  set  forth 
excellent  grounds  for  rejecting  the  errors  contained  in 
Melanchthon's  work,  and  also  threw  a  clear  light  on  his 
reservations  and  intentional  ambiguities.2     Melanchthon's 

1  Cp.  Kolde,  ibid.,  p.  xxiv.  ff.  K.  Muller,  "  Die  Symbole  des 
Luthertums  "  ("  Preuss.  Jahrb.,"  63,  1889,  p.  121  ff.),  points  out  why 
Luther  looked  askance  at  any  Symbolic  Books  ;  the  fact  is  he  did  not 
recognise  any  Church  having  "  a  legal  and  ordered  constitution  and 
laws  such  as  would  call  for  Symbolic  Books."  G.  Kriiger  says  ("  Philipp 
Melanchthon,"  1906,  p.  18  f.)  :  "  The  Confession  and  its  Apology  Were 
wrongly  interpreted  by  the  narrow-minded  orthodoxy  of  later  years 
as  laws  binding  on  faith.  And  yet  why  did  Melanchthon  go  on  im- 
proving and  polishing  them  if  he  did  not  regard  them  as  his  own 
personal  books,  which  he  was  free  to  alter  just  as  every  author  may 
when  he  publishes  a  new  edition  of  his  work  ?  "  Yet  they  were  "  the 
genuine  charter  of  evangelical  belief  as  understood  by  our  Reformers." 

2  Cp.  J.  Ficker,  "  Die  Konfutation  des  Augsburger  Bekenntnisses," 
Gotha  and  Leipzig,  1891,  where  the  "  Confutatio  "  is  reprinted  in  its 
original  form  (p.  1  ff.).  Adolf  Harnack  says  ("  Lehrb.  der  Dogmen- 
gesch.,"  34,  1910,  p.  670,  n.  3) :  "  The  duplicity  of  the  '  Augustana  ' 
has  become  still  more  apparent  in  Ficker's  fine  book  on  the 
1  Confutation  The  confuters  were  unfortunately  right  in  many  of 
the  passages  they  adduced  in  proof  of  the  lack  of  openness  ap- 
parent in  the  Confession.  In  the  summer  of  1530  Luther  was 
not  so  well  satisfied  with  the  book  as  he  had  been  in  May,  and 
he  too  practically  admitted  the  objections  on  the  score  of  dissimu- 
lation made  by  the  Catholics."  Harnack  quotes  in  support  of  "  the 
dissimulation "    the    passage    at   the   end    of   Article   xxi.     ("  Symb. 


332         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

answer  was  embodied  in  his  "  Apologia  Confessionis 
Augustance"  which  well  displays  its  author's  ability  and 
also  his  slipperiness,  and  later  took  its  place,  side  by  side 
with  the  Confession,  as  the  second  official  exposition  of 
Lutheranism.  It  energetically  vindicates  Luther's  dis- 
tinctive doctrines,  and  above  all  declares,  again  quite 
falsely,  that  the  doctrine  of  justificatory  faith  was  the  old, 
traditional  Catholic  doctrine.  Nor  does  it  refrain  from 
strong  and  insulting  language,  particularly  in  the  official 
German  version.  The  opposite  party  it  describes  as  shame- 
less liars,  rascals,  blasphemers,  hypocrites,  rude  asses, 
hopeless,  senseless  sophists,  traitors,  etc.1  This,  together 
with  the  "  Confessio  Augustana"  was  formally  subscribed 
at  the  Schmalkalden  meeting  in  1537  by  all  the  theologians 
present  at  the  instance  of  the  Evangelical  Estates.     Thus 

Biicher  "  10,  p.  47)  :  "  Hcecfere  summa  est  doctrince  apud  nos  [Harnack  : 
suos]  in  qua  cerni  potest  nihil  inesse,  quod  discrepet  a  scripturis  vel  ab 
ecclesia  caiholica  vel  ab  ecclesia  romana,  quatenus  ex  scriptoribus  nota  est." 
On  p.  684  Harnack  says  concerning  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  :  "  That 
the  gospel  of  the  Reformation  has  found  masterly  expression  in  the 
Augustana  I  cannot  admit.  The  Augustana  was  the  foundation  of  a 
doctrinal  Church  ;  to  it  was  really  due  the  narrowing  of  the  Reformation 
movement,  and,  besides,  it  was  not  entirely  sincere.  .  .  .  Its  state- 
ments, both  positive  and  negative,  are  intentionally  incomplete  in 
many  important  passages  ;  its  diplomatic  readiness  to  meet  the  older 
Church  is  painful,  and  the  way  in  which  it  uses  the  sectarians  [Zwing- 
lians]  as  a  whipping-boy  and  deals  out  '  anathemas  '  is  not  only  un- 
charitable but  unjust,  and  dictated  not  merely  by  spiritual  zeal  but  by 
worldly  prudence."  Still  he  finds  "  jewels  in  the  earthen  vessel  "  ; 
"  but,  as  regards  the  author,  we  may  say  without  hesitation  that 
Melanchthon  in  this  instance  undertook — was  forced  to  undertake — a 
task  for  which  his  talents  and  his  character  did  not  fit  him." 

As  regards  the  position  of  the  Augustana  in  the  history  of  Protestant- 
ism, Harnack  remarks  on  the  same  page,  that  the  free  teaching  of  the 
Reformation  then  began  to  develop  into  a  "  Rule  of  Faith."  "  When  to 
this  was  added  the  pressure  from  without,  and  when,  under  the  storms 
which  were  gathering  (fanatics,  Anabaptists),  courage  to  say  anything 
quod  discrepet  ab  ecclesia  catholica  vel  ab  ecclesia  romana,  quatenus  ex 
scriptoribus  nota  est,  faded  away,  then  the  movement  terminated  in 
the  Confession  of  Augsburg,  which  while  not  actually  denying  the 
principle  of  evangelical  freedom,  nevertheless  begins  to  pour  the  new 
wine  into  old  vessels  (cp.  even  the  Articles  of  Marburg).  Did  the 
Reformation  (of  the  sixteenth  century)  do  away  with  the  old  dogma  ? 
It  is  safer  to  answer  this  question  in  the  negative  than  in  the  affirmative 
But  if  we  admit  that  it  attacked  its  foundations,  as  our  Catholic 
opponents  rightly  accuse  us  of  doing,  and  that  it  was  a  mighty  prin- 
ciple rather  than  a  new  system  of  doctrine,  then  it  must  also  be  ad- 
mitted that  the  altogether  conservative  attitude  of  the  Reformation 
towards  ancient  dogma,  inclusive  of  its  premisses,  for  instance,  Original 
Sin  and  the  Fall,  belongs,  not  to  its  principle,  but  simply  to  its  history." 

1  Dollinger,  "  Die  Reformation,"  3,  p.  280  ff.,  with  a  more  detailed 
appreciation  of  the  Apologia. 


MELANCHTHON  333 

it  came  to  rank  with  the  Confession  of  the  Princes  and,  like 
the  former,  was  incorporated  later,  in  both  the  Latin  and 
the  oldest  German  version,  in  the  symbolic  books.1 

Melanchthon,  in  the  "  Apologia"  re-stated  anew  the 
charges  already  raised  in  the  "  Confessio  "  against  Catholic 
dogma,  nor  did  the  proofs  and  assurances  to  the  contrary 
of  the  authors  of  the  "  Confutatio  "  deter  him  from  again 
foisting  on  the  Catholic  Church  doctrines  she  had  never 
taught.  Thus  he  speaks  of  her  as  teaching,  that  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  could  be  merited  simply  by  man's  own 
works  (without  the  grace  and  the  merits  of  Christ)  ;  he  also 
will  have  it  that  the  effect  of  grace  had  formerly  been 
altogether  lost  sight  of  until  it  was  at  last  brought  again  to 
light — though  as  a  matter  of  fact  "  it  had  been  taught 
throughout  the  whole  world."2 

We  must  come  back  in  detail  to  the  allegations  made  in 
the  Confession,  and  more  particularly  in  the  Apology, 
that  Augustine  was  in  favour  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of 
Justification ;  this  is  all  the  more  necessary  since  the 
Reformers,  at  the  outset,  were  fond  of  claiming  the  authority 
of  Augustine  on  their  behalf.  At  the  same  time  the  admis- 
sions contained  in  Melanchthon's  letters  will  show  us  more 
clearly  the  morality  of  his  behaviour  in  a  matter  of  such 
capital  importance. 

At  the  time  when  the  Confession  was  printed  it  had  already 
long  been  clear  to  him  that  the  principal  exponent  of  the  doctrine 
of  grace  in  the  ancient  Church,  viz.  St.  Augustine,  was  against 
the  Protestant  conception  of  justification. 

On  this  subject  he  expressed  himself  openly  at  the  end  of  May, 
1531,  in  a  confidential  letter  to  Brenz.  Here  he  speaks  of  the 
doctrine  of  Augustine  as  "a  fancy  from  which  we  must  turn 
aside  our  mind  ( '  animus  revocandus  ab  Augustini  imagina- 
tione  ')  "  ;  his  ideas  disagreed  with  St.  Paul's  doctrine  ;  who- 
ever followed  Augustine  must  teach  like  him,  "  that  we  are 
regarded  as  just  by  God,  through  fulfilling  the  commandments 
under  the  action  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  not  through  faith  alone." 3 

In  spite  of  this,  Melanchthon,  in  the  "  Confessio  Augustana," 
had  the  courage  to  appeal  publicly  to  Augustine  as  the  most 
prominent  and  clearest  witness  to  the  Lutheran  view  of  faith 
and  justification,  and  this  he  did  almost  at  the  very  time  when 
penning  the  above  letter,  viz.  in  April  or  May,  1531,  when  the 

1  Reprinted  in  the  "  Symb.  Bucher,"  p.  73  ff.  Cp.  Kolde's  Intro- 
duction, p.  xl.  f. 

2  Bollinger,  ibid.,  p.  281. 

3  "  Briefwechsel  Luthers,"  9,  p.  18  ff.    "  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  501. 


334         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

first  draft  of  the  "  Confessio  "  was  sent  to  the  press.1  According 
to  the  authentic  version,  Melanchthon's  words  were  :  "  That, 
concerning  the  doctrine  of  faith,  no  new  interpretation  had  been 
introduced,  could  be  proved  from  Augustine,  who  treats  diligently 
of  this  matter  and  teaches  that  we  obtain  grace  and  are  justified 
before  God  by  faith  in  Christ  and  not  by  works,  as  his  whole 
book  '  De  Spiritu  et  littera  '  proves."2 

The  writer  of  these  words  felt  it  necessary  to  explain  to  Brenz 
why  he  had  ventured  to  claim  this  Father  as  being  in  "  entire 
agreement."  He  had  done  so  because  this  was  "  the  general 
opinion  concerning  him  ('  propter  publicum  de  eo  persuasionem  '),3 
though,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  did  not  sufficiently  expound  the 
justificatory  potency  of  faith."  The  "  general  opinion  "  was, 
however,  merely  a  groundless  view  invented  by  Luther  and  his 
theologians  and  accepted  by  a  certain  number  of  those  who 
blindly  followed  him.  In  the  Apology  of  the  Confession,  he 
continues,  "  I  expounded  more  fully  the  doctrine  [of  faith 
alone],  but  was  not  able  to  speak  there  as  I  do  now  to  you, 
although,  on  the  whole,  I  say  the  same  thing  ;  it  was  not  to  be 
thought  of  on  account  of  the  calumnies  of  our  opponents."  Thus 
in  the  Apology  also,  even  when  it  was  a  question  of  the  cardinal 
point  of  the  new  teaching,  Melanchthon  was  of  set  purpose 
having  recourse  to  dissimulation.  If  he  had  only  to  fear  the 
calumnies  of  opponents,  surely  his  best  plan  would  have  been 
to  silence  them  by  telling  them  in  all  frankrfess  what  the  Lutheran 
position  really  was  ;  otherwise  he  had  no  right  to  stigmatise 
their  attack  on  weak  points  of  Luther's  doctrine  as  mere  calum- 
nies. Yet,  even  in  the  "  Apologia"  he  appeals  repeatedly 
to  Augustine  in  order  to  shelter  the  main  Lutheran  contentions 
concerning  faith,  grace,  and  good  works  under  the  aegis  of 
his  name.4 

Melanchthon's  endeavour  to  secure  for  Protestantism  a 
place  within  the  older  Church  and  to  check  the  threatened 
repressive  measures,  led  him  to  write  letters  to  the  Bishop 
of  Augsburg,  to  Campeggio,  the  Papal  Legate,  and  to  his 

1  Kolde,  ibid.,  p.  xxi.,  on  the  Latin  edition  which  appeared  at  the 
end  of  April  or  the  beginning  of  May,  being  followed  by  the  German 
edition  (probably)  in  the  autumn. 

2  "  Symb.  Bucher,"  p.  45.  The  Latin  text  runs  :  "  Tota  hcec 
causa  habet  testimonia  patrum.  Nam  Augustinus  multis  voluminibus 
defendit  gratiam  et  iustitiam  fidei  contra  merita  operum.  Et  similia  docet 
Ambrosius.  .  .  .  Quamquam  autem  haec  doctrina  (iustificationis)  con- 
temnitur  ab  imperitis,  tamen  experiuntur  pice  ac  pavidce  conscientice 
plurimam  earn  consolationis  afferre." 

3  In  the  letter  to  Brenz  mentioned  above. 

4  Cp.  the  passages,  "  Symb.  Bucher,"  pp.  92,  104, 151,  218.  On  p.  104 
in  the  article  De  iustificatione  he  quotes  Augustine,  De  spir.  et  litt.,  in 
support  of  Luther's  interpretation  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  Justification. 
On  p.  218  he  foists  this  assertion  on  the  Catholics,  "  homines  sine 
Spiritu  Sancto  posse  .  .  .  mereri  gratiam  et  iustificationem  operibus," 
and  says,  that  this  was  refuted  by  Augustine,  "  cuius  sententiam  supra 
in  articulo  de  iustificatione  recitavimus" 


MELANCHTHON  335 

secretary,  in  which  he  declares  stoutly,  that  the  restoration 
of  ecclesiastical  harmony  simply  depended  on  two  points, 
viz.  the  sanction  of  communion  under  both  kinds  and  the 
marriage  of  the  clergy,  as  though  forsooth  the  two  sides 
agreed  in  belief  and  as  though  his  whole  party  acknow- 
ledged the  Pope  and  the  Roman  Church. 

In  the  letter  to  Cardinal  Campeggio  he  even  assures  him  : 
"  We  reverence  the  authority  of  the  Pope  of  Rome  and  the 
whole  hierarchy,  and  only  beg  he  may  not  cast  us  off. 
.  .  .  For  no  other  reason  are  we  hated  as  we  are  in  Germany 
than  because  we  defend  and  uphold  the  dogmas  of  the 
Roman  Church  with  so  much  persistence.  And  this  loyalty 
to  Christ  and  to  the  Roman  Church  we  shall  preserve  to  our 
last  breath,  even  should  the  Church  refuse  to  receive  us 
back  into  favour."  The  words  "  Roman  Church  "  were  not 
here  taken  in  the  ordinary  sense,  however  much  the  con- 
nection might  seem  to  warrant  this  ;  Melanchthon  really 
means  his  pet  phantom  of  the  ancient  Roman  Church, 
though  he  saw  fit  to  speak  of  fidelity  to  this  phantom  in 
the  very  words  in  which  people  were  wont  to  protest  their 
fidelity  to  the  existing  Roman  Church.  He  further  asked 
of  the  Cardinal  toleration  for  the  Protestant  peculiarities, 
on  the  ground  that  they  were  "  insignificant  matters  which 
might  be  allowed  or  passed  over  in  silence  "  ;  at  any  rate 
"  some  pretext  might  easily  be  found  for  tolerating  them, 
at  least  until  a  Council  should  be  summoned."1 

Campeggio  and  his  advisers  refused  to  be  led  astray  by 
such  assurances. 

On  the  other  hand,  some  representatives  of  the  Curia, 
theologians  or  dignitaries  of  the  German  Church,  allowed 
themselves  to  be  cajoled  by  Melanchthon's  promises  to  the 
extent  of  entering  into  negotiations  with  him  in  the  hope  of 
bringing  him  back  to  the  Church.2  Such  was,  for  instance, 
in  1537,  the  position  of  Cardinal  Sadolet. 

To  Sadolet,  Johann  Fabri  sent  the  following  warning  : 
"  Only  the  man  who  is  clever  enough  to  cure  an  incurable 
malady,  will  succeed  in  leading  Philip — a  real  Vertumnus 
and  Proteus — back  to  the  right  path."3 

1  "  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  173  ;   cp.  p.  169. 

2  G.  Kawerau,  "  Die  Versuche  Melanchthon  zur  kath.  Kirche 
zuruckzufuhren,"  1902  ("  Schriften  des  Vereins  fur  RG.,"  xix.  3. 

3  On  January  28,  1538.  Kawerau,  ibid.,  p.  44.  Cp.  G.  Ellinger, 
"  Philipp  Melanchthon,"  Berlin,  1902,  pp.  362  ff.,  598. 


336         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

Melanchthon  was  nevertheless  pleased  to  be  able  to 
announce  that  Cardinal  Campeggio  had  stated  he  could 
grant  a  dispensation  for  Communion  under  both  kinds  and 
priestly  marriage.1 

With  this  Luther  was  not  much  impressed  :  "I  reply," 
he  wrote  to  his  friends  in  the  words  of  Amsdorf,  "  that  I 

s on  the  dispensation  of  the  Legate  and  his  master  ; 

we  can  find  dispensations  enough."2  His  own  contention 
always  was  and  remained  the  following  :  "  As  I  have  always 
declared,  I  am  ready  to  concede  everything,  but  they  must 
let  us  have  the  Evangel."3  To  Spalatin,  he  says  later  : 
"  Are  we  to  crave  of  Legate  and  Pope  what  they  may  be 
willing  to  grant  us  ?  Do,  I  beg  you,  speak  to  them  in  the 
fashion  of  Amsdorf."4 

On  the  abyss  which  really  separated  the  followers  of  the 
new  faith  from  the  Church,  Luther's  coarse  and  violent 
writing,  "  Vermanug  an  die  Geistlichen  zu  Augsburg," 
throws  a  lurid  light.  Luther  also  frequently  wrote  to  cheer 
Melanchthon  and  to  remind  him  of  the  firmness  which  was 
needed. 

Melanchthon  was  a  prey  to  unspeakable  inward  terrors, 
and  had  admitted  to  Luther  that  he  was  "  worn  out  with 
wretched  cares."5  Luther  felt  called  upon  to  encourage  him 
by  instancing  his  own  case.  He  was  even  more  subject  to 
such  fits  of  anxiety  than  Melanchthon,  but,  however  weak 
inwardly,  he  never  winced  before  outward  troubles  or  ever 
manifested  his  friend's  timidity.  Melanchthon  ought  to 
display  the  same  strength  in  public  dealings  as  he  did  in  his 
inward  trials.6 

1  To  Veit  Dietrich,  July  8,  1530,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  174. 

2  To  Jonas,  Spalatin,  Melanchthon  and  Agricola  at  Augsburg, 
July  15,  1530,  "  Briefwechsel,"  8,  p.  113. 

8  To  Melanchthon,  June  29,  1530,  "  Briefwechsel,"  8,  p.  45. 

4  On  August  28,  1530,  "  Briefwechsel,"  8,  p.  233.  "  Obsecro  te,  ut 
Amsdorfice  respondeas  in  aliquem  angulum  :  '  Dass  uns  der  Papst  und 
Legat  wollten  im  Ars  lecken.'  " 

5  From  Luther's  letter  to  Melanchthon  of  June  27,  1530,  "  Brief- 
wechsel," 8,  p.  35  ;  "  tuas  miserrimas  curas,  quibus  te  scribis  consumi." 
This  was  really  due  to  the  "  greatness  of  our  want  of  faith." 

6  He  writes  to  Melanchthon  on  June  30,  1530,  "  Briefwechsel,"  8, 
p.  51  :  "  Si  nos  ruemus,  ruet  Christus  una  !  Esto  ruat,  malo  ego  cum 
Christo  ruere  quam  cum  Cazsare  stare.''''  His  cause  was  without  "temeritas  " 
and  quite  pure,  "  quod  testatur  mihi  Spiritus  ipse.  '  Ibid.  :  "  Ego  pro  te 
oro,  oravi  et  orabo  nee  dubito,  quin  sim  exauditus  ;  sentio  illud  Amen  in 
corde  meo."  The  entire  letter  mirrors  his  frame  of  mind  during  his  stay 
at  the  Castle  of  Coburg. 


PHILIP  MELANCHTHON  337 

The  Landgrave  Philip,  a  zealous  supporter  of  Luther  and 
Zwingli,  was  not  a  little  incensed  at  Melanchthon's  attempts 
at  conciliation,  the  more  so  as  the  latter  persisted  in 
refusing  to  have  anything  to  do  with  Zwinglianism.  In  one 
of  his  dispatches  to  his  emissaries  at  Augsburg,  Philip  says  : 
"  For  mercy's  sake  stop  the  little  game  of  Philip,  that  shy 
and  worldly-wise  reasoner — to  call  him  nothing  else."1  The 
Nuremberg  delegates  also  remonstrated  with  him.  Baum- 
gartner  of  Nuremberg,  who  was  present  at  the  Diet  of 
Augsburg,  relates  that  Philip  flew  into  a  temper  over  the 
negotiations  and  startled  everybody  by  his  cursing  and 
swearing  ;  he  was  determined  to  have  the  whole  say  him- 
self and  would  not  listen  to  the  Hessian  envoys  and  those 
of  the  cities.  He  "  did  nothing  "  but  run  about  and  indulge 
in  unchristian  manoeuvres  "  ;  he  put  forward  "  unchristian 
proposals  "  which  it  was  "  quite  impossible  "  to  accept ; 
"  then  he  would  say,  '  Oh,  would  that  we  were  away! '  ' 
The  result  would  be,  that,  owing  to  this  duplicity,  the 
"  tyrants  would  only  be  all  the  more  severe  "  ;  "no  one 
at  the  Reichstag  had  hitherto  done  the  cause  of  the  Evangel 
so  much  harm  as  Philip  "  ;  it  was  high  time  for  Luther  "  to 
interfere  with  Philip  and  warn  pious  Princes  against  him."2 

Amongst  the  Protestant  so-called  "  Concessions  "  which 
came  under  discussion  in  connection  with  the  "  Confutatio  " 
was  that  of  episcopal  jurisdiction,  a  point  on  which  Melanch- 
thon  and  Brenz  laid  great  stress.  It  was,  however,  of  such  a 
nature  as  not  to  offend  in  the  least  the  protesting  Princes 
and  towns.  In  the  event  of  their  sanctioning  the  innova- 
tions, the  bishops  were  simply  "  to  retain  their  secular 
authority  "  :  Melanchthon  and  Brenz,  here  again,  wished 
to  maintain  the  semblance  of  continuity  with  the  older 
Church,  and,  by  means  of  the  episcopate,  hoped  to  strengthen 
their  own  position.  Such  temporising,  and  the  delay  it 
involved,  at  least  served  the  purpose  of  gaining  time,  a 
matter  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  Protestant  repre- 
sentatives.3 

Another  point  allowed  by  Melanchthon,  viz.  the  omission 

1  Ellinger,  "  Melanchthon,"  p.  280. 

2  To  Spengler,  September  15,  1530,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  372. 

3  In  his  "  spes  transactionis "  ("Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  2G1)  Melanchthon 
even  described  the  previous  tampering  with  the  Church  as  "  temerarii 
motus"  {ibid.,  p.  246  seq.).  Kawerau,  in  Mdller,  "Lehrb.  der  KG.,"  33, 
p.  112. 

III.— Z 


338         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

of  the  word  "  alone  "  in  the  statement  "  man  is  justified  by 
faith,"  was  also  of  slight  importance,  for  all  depended  on 
the  sense  attached  to  it,  and  the  party  certainly  continued 
to  exclude  works  and  charity.  Melanchthon,  however,  also 
agreed  that  it  should  be  taught  that  penance  has  three 
essential  elements,  viz.  contrition,  confession  of  sin  and 
satisfaction,  i.e.  active  works  of  penance,  "  a  concession," 
Dollinger  says,  "  which,  if  meant  seriously,  would  have 
thrown  the  whole  new  doctrine  of  justification  into  con- 
fusion."1 It  may  be  that  Melanchthon,  amidst  his  manifold 
worries,  failed  to  perceive  this. 

At  any  rate,  all  his  efforts  after  a  settlement  were  ruled 
by  the  '*  Proviso  of  the  Gospel  "2  as  propounded  by  Luther 
to  his  friends  in  his  letters  from  the  Coburg.  According  to 
this  tacit  reservation  no  concession  which  in  any  way 
militated  against  the  truth  or  the  interests  of  the  Evangel 
could  be  regarded  as  valid.  "  Once  we  have  evaded  coercion 
and  obtained  peace,"  so  runs  Luther's  famous  admonition 
to  Melanchthon,  "  then  it  will  be  an  easy  matter  to  amend 
our  wiles  and  slips  because  God's  mercy  watches  over  us."3 
"  All  our  concessions,"  Melanchthon  wrote,  "  are  so  much 
hampered  with  exceptions  that  I  apprehend  the  bishops  will 
suspect  we  are  offering  them  chaff  instead  of  grain."4 

A  letter,  intended  to  be  reassuring,  written  from  Augsburg  on 
September  11  by  Brenz,  who  was  somewhat  more  communicative 
than  Melanchthon,  and  addressed  to  his  friend  Isenmann,  who 
was  anxious  concerning  the  concessions  being  offered,  may  serve 
further  to  elucidate  the  policy  of  Melanchthon  and  Brenz.  Brenz 
writes  :  "If  you  consider  the  matter  carefully  you  will  see  that 
our  proposals  are  such  as  to  make  us  appear  to  have  yielded  to  a 
certain  extent ;  whereas,  in  substance,  we  have  made  no  con- 
cessions whatsoever.  This  they  plainly  understand.  What,  may 
I  ask,  are  the  Popish  fasts  so  long  as  we  hold  the  doctrine 
of  freedom  ?  "  The  real  object  of  the  last  concession,  he  had 
already  pointed  out,  was  to  avoid  giving  the  Emperor  and  his 
Court  the  impression  that  they  were  "  preachers  of  sensuality." 
The  jurisdiction  conceded  to  the  bishops  will  not  harm  us  so  long 
as    they    "  agree    to    our     Via   media    and    conditions  "  ;     they 

1  "  Die  Reformation,"  3,  p.  297. 

2  Luther  to  Melanchthon,  June  29,  1530,  "  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  45  : 
"  Sicuti  semper  scripsi,  omnia  sis  concedere  paralus,  tantum  solo  evan- 
gelio  nobis  libere  permisso." 

3  August  28,  1530,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  8,  p.  235  :  "  dolos  ac  lapsus 
nostros  facile  emendabimus,"  etc.  Cp.  our  vol.  ii.,  p.  386.  For  proof 
that  "mendacia"  should  be  read  after  "dolos"  see  Grisar,  "  Stimmen 
aus  M.L.,"  1913,  p.  286  ff. 

4  To  Camerarius,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  334. 


MELANCHTHON  339 

themselves  will  then  become  new  men,  thanks  to  the  Evangel  ; 
"  for  always  and  everywhere  we  insist  upon  the  proviso  of 
freedom  and  purity  of  doctrine.  Having  this,  what  reason  would 
you  have  to  grumble  at  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops  ?  "x  It 
will,  on  the  contrary,  be  of  use  to  us,  and  will  serve  as  a  buffer 
against  the  wilfulness  of  secular  dignitaries,  who  oppress  our 
churches  with  heavy  burdens.  "  Besides,  it  is  not  to  be 
feared  that  our  opponents  will  agree  to  the  terms."  The  main 
point  is,  so  Melanchthon's  confidential  fellow-labourer  concludes, 
that  only  thus  can  we  hope  to  secure  "  toleration  for  our  doctrine."2 

When  Melanchthon  penned  this  confession  only  a  few 
days  had  elapsed  since  Luther,  in  response  to  anxious  letters 
received  from  Augsburg,  had  intervened  with  a  firm  hand 
and  spoken  out  plainly  against  the  concessions,  and  any 
further  attempts  at  a  diplomatic  settlement.3 

In  obedience  to  these  directions  Melanchthon  began  to 
withdraw  more  and  more  from  the  position  he  had  taken  up. 

The  most  favourable  proposals  of  his  opponents  were  no 
longer  entertained  by  him,  and  he  even  refused  to  fall  in 
with  the  Emperor's  suggestion  that  Catholics  living  in 
Protestant  territories  should  be  left  free  to  practise  their 
religion.  The  Elector  of  Saxony's  divines,  together  with 
Melanchthon,  in  a  memorandum  to  their  sovereign,  de- 
clared, on  this  occasion,  that  it  was  not  sufficient  for 
preachers  to  preach  against  the  Mass,  but  that  the  Princes 
also  must  refuse  to  sanction  it,  and  must  forbid  it.  "  Were 
we  to  say  that  Princes  might  abstain  from  forbidding  it, 
and  that  preachers  only  were  to  declaim  against  it,  one 
could  well  foresee  what  [small]  effect  the  doctrine  and 
denunciations  of  the  preachers  would  have."4  "  The 
theologians,"  remarks  Janssen,  "  thus  gave  it  distinctly  to 
be  understood  that  the  new  doctrine  could  not  endure  with- 
out the  aid  of  the  secular  authority."5     Hence,   at  that 

1  "  Ubique  enim  et  semper  excipimus  libertatem  et  puritatem  doctrince, 
qua  obtenta  tune  dominationem  episcoporum  detrectares  ?  " 

2  "  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  362. 

3  Cp.  Luther's  letter  to  Melanchthon,  August  26,  1530,  and  previous 
ones  to  Melanchthon,  July  13;  to  Jonas,  Spalatin,  Melanchthon  and 
Agricola,  July  15;  to  Melanchthon,  July  27.  "  Brief wechsel,"  8,  pp. 
219,  100,  112,  136. 

4  "  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  307. 

5  "Hist,  of  the  German  People  "  (Engl.  Trans.),  5,  p.  282.  Spoken 
at  the  termination  of  the  historic  Diet  of  Augsburg  the  words  of  the 
theologians  gain  added  interest,  though  this  was  not  the  first  time 
similar  language  was  heard.  Cp.  G.  Kriiger,  "  Phil.  Melanchthon,  eine 
Charakterskizze,"  p.  14  f.      Even  in  1527  the  Visitations  had  been 


340         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

decisive  moment,  the  Protestant  Princes  proclaimed  in- 
tolerance of  Catholics  as  much  a  matter  of  conscience  as 
the  confiscation  of  Church  property.  To  the  demand  of  the 
Emperor  for  restitution  of  the  temporalities,  the  Princes, 
supported  by  the  theologians,  answered,  that  "  they  did 
not  consider  themselves  bound  to  obey,  since  this  matter 
concerned  their  conscience,  against  which  there  ran  no 
prescription  "  (on  the  part  of  those  who  had  been  despoiled).1 
Thus,  with  Melanchthon' s  knowledge  and  approval,  the 
two  principal  factors  in  the  whole  Reformation,  viz.  in- 
tolerance and  robbery  of  Church  property,  played  their 
part  even  here  at  the  turning-point  of  German  history. 

On  his  return  from  the  Coburg  to  Wittenberg,  as  already 
described  (p.  45  f.),  Luther  in  his  sermons  showed  how  the 
Evangel  which  he  proclaimed  had  to  be  preached,  even  at  the 
expense  of  war  and  universal  desolation  :  "  The  cry  now  is,  that, 
had  the  Evangel  not  been  preached,  things  would  never  have 
fallen  out  thus,  but  everything  would  have  remained  calm  and 
peaceful.  No,  my  friend,  but  things  will  improve  ;  Christ 
speaks  :  '  I  have  more  things  to  say  to  you  and  to  judge '  ;  the 
fact  is  you  must  leave  this  preaching  undisturbed,  else  there 
shall  not  remain  to  you  one  stick  nor  one  stone  upon  another,  and 
you  may  say  :  '  These  words  are  not  mine,  but  the  words  of  the 
Father.'  "  (op.  John  viii.  26). 2 

Yet,  at  the  time  of  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  Luther,  for  all  his 
inexorable  determination,  was  not  unmindful  of  the  temporal 
assistance  promised  by  the  Princes.  He  hinted  at  this  with 
entire  absence  of  reserve  in  a  letter,  not  indeed  to  Melanchthon, 
who  was  averse  to  war,  but  to  Spalatin  :  "  Whatever  the  issue 
[of  the  Diet]  may  be,  do  not  fear  the  victors  and  their  craft. 
Luther  is  still  at  large  and  so  is  the  Macedonian  "  (i.e.  Philip  of 
Hesse,  whom  Melanchthon  had  thus  nicknamed  after  the  warlike 
Philip  of  Macedonia).  The  "  Macedonian  "  seemed  to  Luther 
a  sort  of  "  Ismael,"  like  unto  Agar's  son,  whom  Holy  Scripture 
had  described  as  a  wild  man,  whose  hand  is  raised  against  all 
(Gen.  xvi.  12).     Luther  was  aware  that  Philip  had  quitted  the 

"  arranged  by  the  Elector  for  the  amendment  of  the  conditions  " 
which  Luther  had  exposed  "  to  his  sovereign  with  a  heavy  heart,  viz. 
'  how  the  parsonages  are  in  a  state  of  misery,  no  one  giving  or  paying 
anything ' ;  the  common  man  heeds  neither  preacher  nor  parson,  so  that, 
unless  some  strong  measures  are  taken  by  Your  Electoral  Highness  for 
State  maintenance  of  pastors  and  preachers,  there  will  soon  be  neither 
parsonages,  nor  schools,  nor  scholars,  and  so  God's  Word  and  service  will 
come  to  an  end." 

1  Janssen,  ibid.,  p.  282  :  "  neither  were  they  at  all  impressed  by  the 
declaration  of  the  Emperor  that  '  the  Word  of  God,  the  Gospel  and 
every  law,  civil  and  canonical,  forbade  a  man  to  appropriate  to  himself 
the  property  of  another.'  " 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  48,  p.  342. 


MELANCHTHON  341 

Diet  in  anger  and  was  now  nursing  his  fury,  as  it  were,  in  the 
desert.  "  He  is  at  large,"  he  says  in  biblical  language,  "  and 
thence  may  arise  prudence  to  meet  cunning  and  Ismael  to 
oppose  the  enemy.  Be  strong  and  act  like  men.  There  was 
nothing  to  fear  if  they  fought  with  blunted  weapons."1  Philip's 
offer  of  a  refuge  in  Hesse  had  helped  to  render  Luther  more 
defiant. 2 

Exhortations  such  as  these  increased  the  unwillingness  of  his 
friends  at  Augsburg  to  reach  any  settlement  by  way  of  real 
concessions.  All  hopes  of  a  peaceful  outcome  of  the  negotiations 
were  thus  doomed. 

The  Reichstagsabschied  which  finally,  on  November  19, 
1530,  brought  Parliament  to  an  end,  witnessed  to  the 
hopelessness  of  any  lasting  peace  ;  it  required,  however, 
that  the  bishoprics,  monasteries,  and  churches  which  had 
been  destroyed  should  be  re-erected,  and  that  the  parishes 
still  faithful  to  Catholicism  should  enjoy  immunity  under 
pain  of  the  ban  of  the  Empire.3 

Looking  back  at  Melanchthon's  attitude  at  the  Diet,  we 
can  understand  the  severe  strictures  of  recent  historians. 

"  We  cannot  get  rid  of  the  fact,"  writes  Georg  Ellinger,  Mel- 
anchthon's latest  Protestant  biographer,  "  that,  on  the  whole,  his 
attitude  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  does  not  make  a  pleasing  im- 
pression." "  That  the  apprehension  of  seeing  the  realisation  of 
his  principles  frustrated  led  him  to  actions  which  can  in  no  wise 
be  approved,  may  be  freely  admitted."  It  is  true  that  Ellinger 
emphasises  very  strongly  the  "  mitigating  circumstances,"  but  he 
also  remarks  :  "  He  had  no  real  comprehension  of  the  import- 
ance of  the  ecclesiastical  forms  involved  [in  his  concessions],  and 
this  same  lack  of  penetration  served  him  badly  even  later.  The 
method  by  which  he  attempted  to  put  his  plans  into  execution 
displays  nothing  of  greatness  but  rather  that  petty  slyness  which 
seeks  to  overreach  opponents  by  the  use  of  ambiguous  words.  .  .  . 
He  had  recourse  to  this  means  in  the  hope  of  thus  arriving  more 
easily  at  his  goal."  His  "  little  tricks,"  he  proceeds,  "  at  least 
delayed  the  business  for  a  while,"  to  the  manifest  advantage  of 
the  Protestant  cause.4  He  candidly  admits  that  Melanchthon, 
both  before  and  after  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  owing  to  his  weak  and 
not  entirely  upright  character,  was  repeatedly  caught  "  having 
recourse  to  the  subterfuges  of  a  slyness  not  far  removed  from 
dissimulation."6     In  proof  of  this  he  instances  the  expedient 

1  Letter  of  August  28,  1530,  "  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  233. 

2  Luther  to  the  Landgrave,  September  11,  1530,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed., 
56,  p.  xxvii.  ("  Briefwechsel,"  8,  p.  253)  :  "  I  heartily  thank  H.R.H. 
for  his  gracious  and  consoling  offer  to  afford  me  shelter." 

3  Janssen,  ibid.,  p.  319  ff. 

4  "  Ph.  Melanchthon,"  1902,  pp.  283  f.,  286,  287. 
6  Ibid.,  p.  596. 


342         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

invented  by  Melanchthon  for  the  purpose  of  evading  the  confer- 
ence with  Zwingli  at  Marburg  which  was  so  distasteful  to  him. 
"  The  Elector  was  to  behave  as  though  Melanchthon  had,  in  a 
letter,  requested  permission  to  attend  such  a  conference,  and 
had  been  refused  it.  Melanchthon  would  then  allege  this  to  the 
Landgrave  of  Hesse  [who  was  urging  him  to  attend  the  con- 
ference] '  in  order  that  His  Highness  may  be  pacified  by  so 
excellent  an  excuse.'  "x  Ellinger,  most  impartially,  also  adduces 
other  devices  to  which  Melanchthon  had  recourse  at  a  later 
date.2 

The  conduct  of  the  leader  of  the  Protestant  party  at  the  Diet 
of  Augsburg,  more  particularly  his  concern  in  the  document 
addressed  to  the  Legate  Campeggio,  is  stigmatised  as  follows  by 
Karl  Sell,  the  Protestant  historian.  "  This  tone,  this  sudden 
reduction  of  the  whole  world-stirring  struggle  to  a  mere  wrangle 
about  trifles,  and  this  recognition,  anything  but  religious,  of  the 
Roman  Church,  comes  perilously  near  conscious  deception.  Did 
Melanchthon  really  believe  it  possible  to  outwit  diplomats  so 
astute  by  such  a  blind  ?  In  my  opinion  it  is  unfair  to  reproach 
him  with  treason  or  even  servility  ;  what  he  was  guilty  of  was 
merely  duplicity."  Campeggio,  Sell  continues,  of  these  and 
similar  advances  made  by  the  Protestant  spokesmen,  wrote  : 
"  They  answer  as  heretics  are  wont,  viz.  in  cunning  and  am- 
biguous words."3 

Even  in  the  "  Theologische  Realenzyklopadie  des  Protestan- 
tismus  "  a  suppressed  note  of  disapproval  of  Melanchthon's 
"  mistakes  and  weaknesses  "  is  sounded.  His  attitude  at  the 
Diet,  the  authors  of  the  article  on  Melanchthon  say,  "  was  not  so 
pleasing  as  his  learned  labours  on  the  Augsburg  Confession  "  ; 
"  a  clear  insight  into  the  actual  differences  "  as  well  as  a  "  digni- 
fied and  firm  attitude  "  was  lacking  ;  "  this  applies  particularly 
to  his  letter  to  the  Papal  Legate."4 

We  can  understand  how  Dollinger,  in  his  work  "  Die  Reforma- 
tion," after  referring  to  Melanchthon's  palpable  self-contradic- 
tions, speaks  of  his  solemn  appeal  to  the  doctrine  of  St.  Augustine 
as  an  intentional  and  barefaced  piece  of  deception,  an  untruth 
"  which  he  deemed  himself  allowed."  Dollinger,  without  mincing 
matters,  speaks  of  his  "  dishonesty,"  and  relentlessly  brands  his 
misleading  statements  ;  they  leave  us  to  choose  between  two 
alternatives,  either  he  was  endeavouring  to  deceive  and  trick  the 
Catholics,  or  he  had  surrendered  the  most  important  and  dis- 
tinctive Protestant  doctrines,  and  was  ready  to  lend  a  hand  in 
re-establishing  the  Catholic  teaching.5 

1   "Ph.  Melanchthon,"  1902,  p.  251.  2  Ibid.,  p.  343. 

3  "  Ph.  Melanchthon  und  die  deutsche  Reformation  bis  1531  " 
("  Schriften  des  Vereins  fur  RG.,"  xiv.  3),  p.  90  f.  Campeggio,  in  H. 
Laemmer,  "  Monumenta  Vaticana,"  p.  51. 

4  Third  ed.  Art.  "  Melanchthon,"  by  (f  Landerer,  f  Herrlinger  and) 
Kirn,  pp.  518,  529. 

6  "  Die  Reformation,"  1,  p.  358  ff.  The  page-heading  reads  : 
"  Melanchthons  absichtliche  und  dffentliche  Unwahrheit." 


MELANCHTHON  348 

Luther,  so  far  as  we  are  aware,  never  blamed  his  friend, 
either  publicly  or  in  his  private  letters,  for  his  behaviour 
during  this  crisis,  nor  did  he  ever  accuse  him  of  "  treason 
to  the  Evangelical  cause."1  He  only  expresses  now  and 
then  his  dissatisfaction  at  the  useless  protraction  of  the 
proceedings  and  scolds  him  jokingly  "  for  his  fears,  timidity, 
cares  and  lamentations."2  No  real  blame  is  contained  in 
the  words  he  addressed  to  Melanchthon  :  "So  long  as  the 
Papacy  subsists  among  us,  our  doctrine  cannot  subsist.  .  .  . 
Thank  God  that  you  are  having  nothing  from  it."  "I 
know  that  in  treating  of  episcopal  authority  you  have 
always  insisted  on  the  Gospel  proviso,  but  I  fear  that  later 
our  opponents  will  say  we  were  perfidious  and  fickle  ('  per- 
fidos  et  inconstantes  ')  if  we  do  not  keep  to  what  they  want. 
...  In  short,  all  these  transactions  on  doctrine  displease 
me,  because  nothing  comes  of  them  so  long  as  the  Pope  does 
not  do  away  with  his  Papacy."3  A  fortnight  later  Luther 
cordially  blessed  his  friend,  who  was  then  overwhelmed 
with  trouble  :  "I  pray  you,  my  Philip,  not  to  crucify  your- 
self in  anxiety  over  the  charges  which  are  raised  against 
you,  either  verbally  or  in  writing  [by  some  of  ours  who 
argue],  that  you  are  going  too  far.  .  .  .  They  do  not  under- 
stand what  is  meant  by  the  episcopal  authority  which  was 
to  be  re-established,  and  do  not  rightly  estimate  the  con- 
ditions which  we  attach  to  it.  Would  that  the  bishops  had 
accepted  it  on  these  conditions  !  But  they  have  too  fine  a 
nose  where  their  own  interests  are  concerned  and  refuse  to 
walk  into  the  trap."4 

Melanchthon,  the  "  Erasmian  "  Intermediary. 

A  closer  examination  of  the  bent  of  Melanchthon' s  mind 
reveals  a  trait,  common  to  many  of  Luther's  learned 
followers  at  that  time,  which  helps  to  explain  his  attitude 
at  Augsburg. 

The  real  foundations  of  theology  were  never  quite  clear 
to   them   because   their    education   had   been   one-sidedly 

1  Sell,  ibid.,  p.  98. 

2  To  Melanchthon,  June  30,  1530,  "  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  51. 

3  On  August  26,  1530,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  8,  p.  219.  Cp.  his  letters  of 
July  13  to  Melanchthon,  of  July  15  to  Jonas,  Spalatin  and  Melanchthon. 

4  On  September  11,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  8,  p.  252  :  "  Utinam  episcopi 
cam  (iurisdictionem)  accepissent  sub  istia  conditionibus !  Sed  ipsi 
habent  nares  in  suam  rem." 


844         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

Humanistic,  and  they  had  never  studied  theology  proper. 
They  were  fond  of  speaking  and  writing  of  the  Church,  of 
Grace  and  Faith,  but  their  ideas  thereon  were  strangely 
subjective,  so  much  so  that  they  did  not  even  agree  amongst 
themselves.  Hence,  in  their  dealings  with  Catholic  theo- 
logians the  latter  often  failed  to  understand  them.  The 
fruitlessness  of  the  conferences  was  frequently  due  solely 
to  this  ;  though  greatly  prejudiced  in  Luther's  favour,  they 
still  considered  it  possible  for  the  chasm  between  the  old 
and  the  new  to  be  bridged  over,  and  longed  earnestly  for 
such  a  consummation  to  be  secured  by  some  yielding  on  the 
Catholic  side  ;  they  were  unwilling  to  break  away  from  the 
Church  Universal,  and,  besides,  they  looked  askance  at  the 
moral  consequences  of  the  innovations  and  feared  still 
greater  confusion  and  civil  war. 

That  this  was  the  spirit  which  animated  Mclanchthon  is 
evident  from  some  of  the  facts  already  recorded. 

He  had  nothing  more  at  heart  than  to  secure  the  atmo- 
sphere essential  for  his  studies  and  for  the  furtherance 
of  intellectual,  particularly  Humanistic,  culture,  and  to 
smooth  the  way  for  its  general  introduction  into  Germany. 
His  knowledge  of  theology  had  been  acquired,  as  it  were, 
incidentally  through  his  intercourse  with  Luther  and  his 
study  of  Scripture  ;  the  latter,  however,  had  been  influenced 
by  his  Humanism  and,  speaking  generally,  he  contented 
himself  in  selecting  in  the  Bible  certain  general  moral 
truths  which  might  serve  as  a  rule  of  life.  He  indeed  studied 
the  Fathers  more  diligently  than  Luther,  the  Greek  Fathers 
proving  particularly  attractive  to  him  ;  it  was,  however, 
chiefly  a  study  of  form,  of  culture,  and  of  history,  and  as 
regards  theology  little  more  than  mere  dilettantism.  His 
insight  into  the  practical  life  of  the  Church  left  much  to  be 
desired,  otherwise  the  Anabaptist  movement  at  Zwickau 
would  not  have  puzzled  him  as  it  did  and  left  him  in  doubt 
as  to  whether  it  came  from  God  or  the  devil.  His  ignorance 
of  the  gigantic  intellectual  labours  of  the  Middle  Ages  in 
the  domain  of  theology  made  itself  felt  sensibly.  He  knew 
even  less  of  Scholasticism  than  did  Luther,  yet,  after  having 
acquired  a  nodding  acquaintance  with  it  in  its  most  debased 
form,  he,  as  a  good  pupil  of  Erasmus,  proceeded  to 
condemn  it  root  and  branch.  Every  page  of  his  writings 
proves  that  his  method  of  thought  and  expression,  with  its 


MELANCHTHON  345 

indecision,  its  groping,  its  dependence  on  echoes  from  the 
classics,  was  far  removed  from  the  masterpieces  of  learning 
and  culture  of  the  best  days  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Yet  he 
fancies  himself  entitled  to  censure  Scholasticism  and  to 
write  in  Luther's  style  with  a  conceit  only  matched  by  his 
ignorance  :  "  You  see  what  thick  darkness  envelops  the 
commentaries  of  the  ancients  and  the  whole  doctrine  of  our 
opponents,  how  utterly  ignorant  they  are  of  what  sin  really 
is,  of  the  purpose  of  the  law,  of  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel, 
of  prayer,  and  of  man's  refuge  when  assailed  by  mental 
terrors."1  The  "  mental  terrors,"  referred  to  here  and 
elsewhere,  belonged  to  Luther's  world  of  thought.  This 
touch  of  mysticism,  the  only  one  to  be  found  occasionally 
in  Melanchthon's  works,  scarcely  availed  to  render  his 
theology  any  the  more  profound.2 

Hence,  in  fairness,  his  attempts  at  mediation  when  at 
the  Diet  of  Augsburg  may  be  regarded  as  largely  due  to 
ignorance  and  to  his  prejudice  against  Catholic  theology. 

We  must,  however,  also  take  into  consideration  the 
Humanist  phantom  of  union  and  peace  for  the  benefit  of  the 
commonweal  and  particularly  of  scholarship  ;  likewise  his 
frequently  expressed  aversion  for  public  disorder,  and  his 
fears  of  a  decline  of  morals  and  of  worse  things  to  come. 
Then  only  shall  we  be  in  a  position  to  understand  the 
attitude  of  the  man  upon  whose  shoulders  the  burden  of  the 
matter  so  largely  rested.  The  trait  chiefly  to  be  held 
accountable  for  his  behaviour,  viz.  his  peculiar,  one-sided 
Humanistic  education,  was  well  described  by  Luther  later 
on  when  Melanchthon  was  attacked  by  Cordatus  and 
Schenk  for  his  tendency  to  water  down  dogma.     Luther 

1  To  Camerarius,  November  2,  1540,  "  Corp,  ref.,"  3,  p.  1126. 

2  Cp.  his  "  Apologia  "  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  Art.  iv.,  "  Symb. 
Biicher,"  p.  87,  where,  on  the  doctrine  of  Justification,  the  old  German 
translation  runs  :  "  Because  the  gainsayers  know  not  nor  understand 
what  the  words  of  Scripture  mean,  what  forgiveness  of  sins,  or  grace,  or 
faith,  or  justice  is  .  .  .  they  have  miserably  robbed  poor  souls,  to 
whom  it  was  a  matter  of  life  and  death,  of  their  eternal  consolation." 
Page  90  :  "  They  do  not  know  what  the  fear  of  death  or  the  assaults  of 
the  devil  are  .  .  .  when  the  heart  feels  the  anger  of  God  or  the  con- 
science is  troubled  .  .  .  but  the  affrighted  conscience  knows  well  that 
it  is  impossible  to  merit  either  de  condigno  or  de  congruo,  and  therefore 
soon  sinks  into  distrust  and  despair,"  etc.  Page  95  :  The  new  teaching 
alone  was  able  "  to  raise  up  our  hearts  even  amidst  the  terrors  of  sin 
and  death,"  etc.  Hence  Melanchthon  insists  in  his  "  Brevis  discendce 
theologice  ratio  "  ("  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  458),  that  Bible  study  served  "  ad 
usurn,  et  ad  tentationes  superandas  comparanda  cognitio." 


346         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

then  spoke  of  the   "  Erasmian  intermediaries  "   at  whose 
rough  handling  he  was  not  in  the  least  surprised. 


2.   Disagreements  and  Accord  between  Luther  and 
Melanchthon 

Luther  had  good  reason  for  valuing  highly  the  theological 
services  which  Melanchthon  rendered  him  by  placing  his 
ideas  before  the  world  in  a  form  at  once  clearer  and  more 
dignified.  Points  of  theology  and  practice  which  he  supplied 
to  his  friend  as  raw  material,  Melanchthon  returned  duly 
worked-up  and  polished.  Luther's  views  assumed  practical 
shape  in  passing  through  Melanchthon's  hands.1 

At  the  outset  the  latter  readily  accepted  all  the  doctrines 
of  his  "  prceceptor  observandissimus"  In  the  first  edition  of 
the  "  Loci "  (December,  1521)  he  made  his  own  even 
Luther's  harshest  views,  those,  namely,  concerning  man's 
unfreedom  and  God's  being  the  author  of  evil.2  The  faithful 
picture  of  his  doctrine  which  Luther  there  found  so  delighted 
him,  that  he  ventured  to  put  the  ''''Loci  "  on  a  level  with  the 
canon  of  Holy  Scripture  (vol.  ii.,  p.  239). 

Disagreements . 

As  years  passed  by,  Melanchthon  allowed  himself  to 
deviate  more  and  more  from  Luther's  teaching.  The  latter's 
way  of  carrying  every  theological  thesis  to  its  furthest  limit, 
affrighted  him.  He  yearned  for  greater  freedom  of  action, 
was  desirous  of  granting  a  reasonable  amount  of  room  to 
doubt,  and  was  not  averse  to  learning  a  thing  or  two  even 
from  opponents.  It  was  his  Humanistic  training  which 
taught  him  to  put  on  the  brake  and  even  to  introduce 
several  far-reaching  amendments  into  Luther's  theories. 
It  was  his  Humanism  which  made  him  value  the  human 
powers  and  the  perfectibility  of  the  soul,  and  thus  to  doubt 
whether  Luther  was  really  in  the  right  in  his  denial  of  free- 
dom. Such  a  doubt  we  find  faintly  expressed  by  him  soon 
after  he  had  perused  the  "  Diatribe  "  published  by  Erasmus 
in  1524. 3    Luther's  reply  ("  De  servo  arbitrio"),  to  which 

1  See  Kawerau,  "  Luthers  Stellung,"  etc.  (above  p.  319,  n.  1),  p.  32. 
Cp.  Kawerau,  "  Studien  und  Kritiken,"  1897,  p.  678  f. 

2  Plitt-Kolde,  3,  1900. 

3  Melanchthon  to  Spalatin,  September,  1524,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  1,  p.  674, 
after  the  publication  of  the  "  Diatribe  "  :    i;  Diu  optavi  Luther o  pru- 


MELANCHTHON  347 

Melanchthon  officially  accorded  his  praise,  failed  to  con- 
vince him  of  man's  lack  of  freedom  in  the  natural  order.  In 
1526,  in  his  lectures  on  Colossians  (printed  in  1528),  he 
openly  rejected  the  view  that  God  was  the  author  of  sin, 
stood  up  for  freedom  in  all  matters  of  civil  justice,  and 
declared  that  in  such  things  it  was  quite  possible  to  avoid 
gross  sin.1  In  his  new  edition  of  the  "  Loci  "  in  1527  he 
abandoned  determinism  and  the  denial  of  free-will,  and 
likewise  the  severer  form  of  the  doctrine  of  predestination,2 
such  as  he  had  still  championed  in  the  1525  edition,  but 
which,  he  had  now  come  to  see,  was  at  variance  with  the 
proper  estimate  of  man  and  human  action. 

Neither  could  Melanchthon  ever  bring  himself  to  speak  of 
human  reason,  as  compared  to  faith,  in  quite  the  same 
language  of  disrespect  as  Luther. 

That,  on  the  occasion  of  the  Visitation,  he  began  to  lay 
stress  on  works  as  well  as  faith,  has  already  been  pointed 
out.3  In  this  connection  it  is  curious  to  note  how,  with  his 
usual  caution  and  prudence  where  Luther  and  his  more 
ardent  followers  were  concerned,  he  recommends  that 
works  should  be  represented  as  praiseworthy  only  when 
penance  was  being  preached,  but  not,  for  instance,  when 
Justification  was  the  subject,  as,  here,  Lutherans,  being 
accustomed  to  hear  so  much  of  the  "  sola  fides"  might  well 
take  offence.4 

In  the  matter  of  Justification,  he,  like  Luther,  made 
everything  to  rest  on  that  entirely  outward  covering 
over  of  man  by  Christ's  merits  received  through  faith,  or 

dentem  aliquem  de  hoc  negotio  antagonistam  contingere."  "  His  own 
testimony  (in  1536)  is  decisive  as  to  the  effect  of  Erasmus  on  his  opinion 
regarding  free-will."  Ellinger,  ibid.,  p.  199.  On  the  "  Diatribe,''''  see  our 
vol.  ii.,  p.  261  ff. 

1  Ellinger,  ibid.,  p.  202.  In  this  he  was  of  course  inconsequent,  for, 
as  Ellinger  says,  where  it  is  a  question  of  the  religious  life,  he  traces 
everything  back  to  the  action  of  God.  "It  is  easy  to  see,  that,  here, 
as  in  Luther's  case  (where  the  Deus  absconditus  plays  a  part),  we  have 
merely  an  expedient."    Ibid. 

2  Ellinger,  ibid.,  p.  175  f. 

3  Above,  p.  324.  He  was  being  attacked  on  account  of  the  stress  he  laid 
on  good  works,  so  he  wrote  to  Camerarius  in  December,  1536,  but 
though  so  many  preachers  were  now  shouting  in  stentorian  tones  that 
it  was  erroneous  to  demand  works,  "  posterity  will  be  astonished  that 
an  age  so  mad  could  ever  have  been,  when  such  folly  met  with  ap- 
plause." Cp.  "  Pezelii  Obiectiones  et  resp.  Melanchthonis,"  5,  p.  289, 
in  Dollinger,  "  Die  Reformation,"  1,  p.  373. 

*  To  Veit  Dietrich,  June  22,  1537,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  3,  p.  383. 


348  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

rather  through  confidence  of  salvation.1  Indeed,  Luther's 
greatest  service,  according  to  him,  lay  in  his  having  made 
this  discovery.  It  was  necessary,  so  he  taught,  that  Chris- 
tian perfection  should  be  made  to  consist  solely  in  one's 
readiness,  whenever  oppressed  by  the  sense  of  guilt,  to  find 
consolation  by  wrapping  oneself  up  in  the  righteousness  of 
Christ.  Then  the  heart  is  "  fearless,  though  our  conscience 
and  the  law  continue  to  cry  within  us  that  we  are  un- 
worthy." In  other  words,  we  must  "  take  it  as  certain  that 
we  have  a  God  Who  is  gracious  to  us  for  Christ's  sake,  be 
our  works  what  they  may."2 

It  was  his  advocacy  of  this  doctrine,  as  the  very  founda- 
tion of  sanctification,  which  earned  for  him  the  striking 
commendation  we  find  in  a  letter  written  by  Luther  to 
Jonas  in  1529.  Melanchthon  had  been  of  greater  service  to 
the  Church  and  the  cause  of  holiness  than  "  a  thousand 
fellows  of  the  ilk  of  Jerome,  Hilarion  or  Macarius,  those 
Saints  of  ceremonies  and  celibacy  who  were  not  worthy  to 
loose  the  laces  of  his  boots  nor — to  boast  a  little — of  yours 
[Jonas's],  of  Pomeranus  [Bugenhagen],  or  even  of  mine. 
For  what  have  these  self-constituted  Saints  and  all  the 
wifeless  bishops  done  which  can  compare  with  one  year's 
work  of  Philip's,  or  with  his  4  Loci  '  ?  "3 
1  Yet  this  very  work  was  to  bear  additional  testimony  to 
Melanchthon's. abandonment  of  several  of  Luther's  funda- 
mental doctrines.4 

In  1530  and  1531  Melanchthon  passed  through  a  crisis, 
and  from  that  time  forward  a  greater  divergency  in  matters 
of  doctrine  became  apparent  between  the  two  friends.  Even 
in  his  work  for  the  Diet  in  1530  Melanchthon  had  assumed 
a  position  of  greater  independence,  and  this  grew  more 
marked  when  he  began  to  plan  a  revised  edition  of  his 
"  Loci.'"     He  himself  was  later  to  acknowledge  that  his 

1  To  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  in  1524,  under  the  title  "  Epitome 
renovalce  ecclesiasticce  doctri?ice  "  ("  Corp.  ref.,"  1,  p.  704)  :  "  Iuslitia 
vere  Christiana  est,  cum  confusa  conscientia  per  fidem  in  Christum 
erigitur  et  sentit,  se  accipere  remissionem  peccatofum  propter  Christum." 
In  the  same  "  Epitome"  p.  706  :  "  Ipsissimam  iustitiam  esse,  credere 
quod  per  Christum  remittantur  peccata  sine  nostra  satisfactione,  sine 
nostris  meritis." 

2  Cp.  the  passages  in  D61Hnger,  "  Die  Reformation,"  3,  p.  291. 

3  Letter  of  August  or  September,  1529,  "  Brief wechsel,"  7,  p.  158. 

*  Even  in  his  "  Discendce  theologian  ratio  "  of  1530  ("  Corp.  ref.," 
2,  p.  457),  Melanchthon  had  said  :  "  Multa  sunt  in  illis  (Locis)  adhuc 
rudiora,  quae  decrevi  mutare." 


MELANCHTHON  349 

views  had  undergone  a  change,  though,  in  order  to  avoid 
unpleasantness,  he  preferred  to  make  out  that  the  altera- 
tion was  less  far-reaching  than  it  really  was.  "  You  know,'3 
he  wrote  to  an  ardent  admirer  of  Luther's,  "  that  I  put 
certain  things  concerning  predestination,  determination  of 
the  will,  necessity  of  obedience  to  the  law,  and  grievous  sin, 
less  harshly  than  does  Luther.  In  all  these  things,  as  I 
well  know,  Luther's  teaching  is  the  same  as  mine,  but  there 
are  some  unlearned  persons,  who,  without  at  all  understand- 
ing them,  pin  their  faith  on  certain  rude  expressions  of 
his."1  But  was  Luther's  teaching  really  "  the  same  "  ? 
The  truth  is,  that,  on  the  points  instanced,  "  Luther  had 
not  only  in  earlier  days  taught  a  doctrine  different  from 
that  of  Melanchthon,  but  continued  to  cherish  the  same  to 
the  very  end  of  his  life."2  It  fitted,  however,  the  cowardly 
character  of  Melanchthon  to  conceal  as  much  as  possible 
these  divergencies. 

It  is  worth  our  while  to  examine  a  little  more  closely  the 
nature  of  the  doctrinal  differences  between  Luther  and 
Melanchthon,  seeing  that  the  latter — to  quote  the  Protestant 
theologian  Gustav  Kriiger — was  the  real  "  creator  of 
evangelical  theology  "  and  the  "  founder  of  the  evangelical 
Church  system."3 

As  a  matter  of  fact  Melanchthon  had  already  shaped  out  a 
course  of  his  own  by  the  modifications  which  he  had  seen  fit  to 
introduce  in  the  original  Confession  of  Augsburg. 

Not  only  did  he  omit  whatever  displeased  him  in  the  new 
doctrine,  but  he  also  formulated  it  in  a  way  which  manifestly 
deviated  from  Luther's  own.  Human  co-operation,  for  instance, 
plays  a  part  much  greater  than  with  Luther.  Unlike  Luther, 
he  did  not  venture  to  assert  plainly  that  the  gift  of  faith  was 
the  work  of  God  independent  of  all  human  co-operation.  Con- 
cerning the  "  law,"  too,  he  put  forward  a  different  opinion,  which, 
however,  was  not  much  better  than  Luther's.4  In  1530,  so  says 
Fr.  Loofs,  one  of  the  most  esteemed  Protestant  historians  of 
dogma,  "  he  was  no  longer  merely  an  interpreter  of  Luther's 
ideas."5     "  Yet  he  had  not  yet  arrived  at  a  finished  theology  of 

1  To  Veit  Dietrich,  June  22,  1537,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  3,  p.  383  :  "  Scio, 
re  ipsa  Lutherum  sentire  eadem."' 

2  Fr.  Loofs,  "  Leitfaden  zum  Studium  der  Dogmengesch.,"  4,  1906, 
p.  857.  He  says,  that  Melanchthon  "  was  deceiving  himself "  in 
asserting  that  Luther's  teaching  was  the  same. 

3  "  Phil.  Melanchthon,  eine  Charakterskizze,"  1906,  p.  3. 

4  Loofs,  ibid.,  p.  837  f. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  838.  He  had  even  ceased  to  be  a  true  interpreter  since 
1527,  so  we  read  on  p.  842. 


350         LUTHER   THE    REFORMER 

his  own  even  in  1531,  when  he  published  the  '  editio  princeps  *  of 
the  '  Augustana'  and  the  'Apologia.'  "x  One  of  the  first  im- 
portant products  of  the  change  was  the  Commentary  on  Romans 
which  he  published  in  1532.  Then,  in  1535,  appeared  the  revised 
edition  of  the  "  Loci,"  which,  in  its  new  shape,  apart  from  mere 
modifications  of  detail,  was  to  serve  as  his  measure  for  the  last 
twenty-five  years  of  his  life.  "  The  '  Loci  '  of  1535  embody  the 
distinctive  Melanchthonian  theology."2 

"  Thus,  even  before  the  death  of  Luther,  and  before  altered 
circumstances  had  restricted  Melanchthon's  influence,  the  stamp 
which  the  latter  had  impressed  upon  the  principles  of  the  Reforma- 
tion had  already  become  the  heritage  of  a  large  circle  of  evan- 
gelical theologians."3 

Leaving  aside  the  idea  of  an  unconditional  Divine  predestina- 
tion, he  spoke  in  both  these  works  of  the  "  promissio  universalis  " 
of  salvation.  The  Holy  Ghost — such  is  his  view  on  the  question 
of  conversion — by  means  of  the  "  Word  "  produces  faith  in  those 
who  do  not  resist.  The  human  will,  which  does  not  reject,  but 
accepts  grace,  forms,  together  with  the  "  Word  of  God  "  and  the 
"  Holy  Ghost,"  one  of  the  three  causes  ("  tres  causae  concur- 
rentes  ")  of  conversion.  It  is  really  to  Luther's  deterministic 
doctrine  that  the  author  of  the  "  Loci  "  alludes  in  the  1535 
edition  :  "  The  Stoics'  ravings  about  fate  must  find  no  place  in 
the  Church."4 

Human  co-operation  in  the  work  of  salvation  came  to  be 
designated  Synergism.  The  Protestant  historian  of  dogma 
mentioned  above  points  out  "  that,  by  his  adoption  of  Synergism, 
Melanchthon  forsook  both  the  Lutheran  tradition  and  his  own 
earlier  standpoint."  The  assumption  of  an  unconditional  Divine 
predestination,  such  as  we  find  it  advocated  by  Luther,  Zwingli, 
Bucer,  Calvin  and  others,  was  here  "  for  the  first  time  thrown 
overboard  by  one  of  the  Protestant  leaders."5  The  same  author, 
after  commenting  on  Melanchthon's  new  exposition  of  justifica- 
tion and  the  law  in  relation  to  the  Gospel,  declares  that  here,  too, 
Melanchthon  had  exploited  "  only  a  part  of  Luther's  thought  and 
had  distorted  some  of  the  most  precious  truths  we  owe  to  the 
Reformation."6 

This  same  charge  we  not  seldom  hear  brought  against  Melanch- 
thon by  up-to-date  Protestant  theologians.  In  the  school  of 
Albert  Ritschl  it  is,  for  instance,  usual  to  say  that  he  narrowed 
the  ideas  of  Luther,  particularly  in  his  conception  of  faith  and  of 
the  Church.  The  truth  is  that  Melanchthon  really  did  throw 
overboard  certain  radical  views  which  had  been  cherished  by 
Luther,  particularly  in  his  early  days.  The  faith  which  is  re- 
quired for  salvation  he  comes  more  and  more  to  take  as  faith  in 
all  the  articles  of  revelation,  and  not  so  much  as  a  mere  faith  and 
confidence  in   the  forgiveness   of   sins   and   personal   salvation  ; 


Loofs,  p.  842. 

2  Ibid.,  p. 

844. 

Ibid. 

4  Ibid.,  p. 

845. 

Ibid.,  p.  845  ff. 

6  Ibid.,  p. 

853  f. 

MELANCHTHON  351 

"  the  first  place  is  accorded  no  longer  to  trust  but  to  doctrine,"1 
though,  as  will  appear  immediately,  he  did  not  feel  quite  sure  of 
his  position.  In  his  conception  of  the  Church,  too,  he  was  more 
disposed  to  see  "  an  empirical  reality  and  to  insist  on  its  doctrinal 
side,"2  instead  of  looking  on  the  Church,  as  Luther  did,  viz.  as 
the  "invisible  band  of  all  who  confess  the  Gospel."3  Johannes 
Haussleiter,  the  Protestant  editor  of  the  Disputations  held  under 
Melanchthon  from  1546  onwards,  thus  feels  justified  in  saying 
that,  "  it  was  in  Melanchthon's  school  that  the  transition  was 
effected  .  .  .  from  a  living  confession  born  of  faith  and  moulded 
with  the  assistance  of  theology,  to  a  firm,  hard  and  rigid  law  of 
doctrine.  .  .  .  This,  from  the  point  of  view  of  history,  spelt 
retrogression.  ...  If  it  was  possible  for  such  a  thing  to  occur 
at  Wittenberg  one  generation  after  Luther's  ringing  testimony  in 
favour  of  the  freedom  of  a  Christian  Man,  what  might  not  be 
feared  for  the  future  ?  "4 

Carl  Miiller  is  also  at  pains  to  show  that  it  was  Melanchthon 
who  imbued  the  first  generation  of  theologians — for  whose 
formation  he,  rather  than  Luther,  was  responsible — with  the 
idea  of  a  Church  which  should  be  the  guardian  of  that  "  pure 
doctrine  "  to  be  enshrined  in  formularies  of  faith.  According  to 
Miiller  it  can  never  be  sufficiently  emphasised  that  the  common 
idea  is  all  wrong,  and  that  "  to  Luther  himself  the  Church  never 
meant  a  congregation  united  by  outward  bonds  or  represented  by 
a  hierarchy  or  any  other  legal  constitution,  rule  or  elaborate 
creed,  but  nothing  more  than  a  union  founded  on  the  Gospel  and 
its  confession  "  ;  Luther,  according  to  him,  remained  "  on  the 
whole  "  true  to  his  ideal.5  How  far  the  words  "  on  the  whole  "  are 
correct,  will  be  seen  when  we  come  to  discuss  Luther's  changes  of 
views. 8 

Melanchthon  betrays  a  certain  indecision  in  his  answer  to  the 
weighty  question  :  Which  faith  is  essential  for  salvation  ?  At 
one  time  he  takes  this  faith,  according  to  the  common  Lutheran 
view,  as  trust  in  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ,  at  another,  as  assent 
to  the  whole  revealed  Word  of  God.  Of  his  Disputations,  which 
are  the  best  witnesses  we  have  to  his  attitude,  the  editor  says 
aptly  :  "  He  alternates  between  two  definitions  of  faith  which 
he  seems  to  consider  of  equal  value,  though  to-day  the  differ- 
ence between  them  cannot  fail  to  strike  one.      He  wavers,  and 

1  J.  Haussleiter,  "  Aus  der  Schule  Melanchthons,  Theologische 
Disputationen  uaw.,  1546  bis  1560,"  Greifswald,  1897,  p.  35. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  39. 

3  Cp.  Loofs,  loc.  cit.,  p.  855. 

4  Haussleiter,  loc.  cit.,  p.  v.   Also  Loofs,  loc.  cit.  Cp.  above,  p.  332,  n. 

5  "Die  Symbole  des  Luthertums  "  ("  Preuss.  Jahrb.."  63,  1889), 
p.  121  ff. 

6  Cp.  above,  p.  3  ff.  It  should  be  pointed  out  in  order  to  supplement 
the  above  statements  of  Haussleiter  and  Miiller  that  Luther  neverthe- 
less looks  on  faith  as  the  acceptance  of  certain  dogmas  (cp.  above,  p.  14, 
and  vol.  v.,  xxxiv.  1),  and  thus  in  some  sense  recognises  a  "  rule  of 
faith,"  and  that  not  seldom  in  the  most  peremptory  fashion  he  demands 
obedience  to  the  "  injunctions  of  faith." 


352         LUTHER  THE   REFORMER 

yet  he  does  so  quite  unconsciously."1  The  same  editor  alsc 
states  that  all  attempts  hitherto  made  to  explain  this  phenome- 
non leave  something  to  be  desired.  He  himself  makes  no  such 
attempt. 

The  true  explanation,  however,  is  not  far  to  seek. 

Melanchthon's  vacillation  was  the  inevitable  consequence  of  a 
false  doctrinal  standpoint.  According  to  the  principles  of  Luther 
and  Melanchthon,  faith,  even  as  a  mere  assurance  of  salvation, 
should  of  itself  avail  to  save  a  man  and  therefore  to  make  him  a 
member  of  the  Church.  Thus  there  is  no  longer  any  ground  to 
require  a  preliminary  belief  or  obedient  acceptance  of  the  whole 
substance  of  the  Word  of  God  ;  and  yet  some  acceptance,  at  least 
implicit,  of  the  whole  substance  of  revelation,  seems  required  of 
everyone  who  desires  to  be  a  Christian.  This  explains  the  efforts 
of  both  Luther  and  Melanchthon  to  discover  ways  and  means  for 
the  reintroduction  of  this  sort  of  faith.  Their  search  was  rendered 
the  more  difficult  by  the  fact  that  here  there  was  a  "  work  "  in 
the  most  real  sense  of  the  word,  viz.  willing,  humble  and  cheerful 
acceptance  of  the  law,  and  readiness  to  accord  a  firm  assent  to 
the  truths  revealed.  The  difficulty  was  even  enhanced  because  in 
the  last  resort  an  authority  is  required,  particularly  by  the  un- 
learned, to  formulate  the  doctrines  and  to  point  out  what  the 
true  content  of  revelation  is.  In  point  of  fact,  however,  every 
external  guarantee  of  this  sort  had  been  discarded,  at  least 
theoretically,  and  no  human  authority  could  provide  such  an 
assurance.  We  seek  in  vain  for  a  properly  established  authority 
capable  of  enacting  with  binding  power  what  has  to  be  believed, 
now  that  Luther  and  Melanchthon  have  rejected  the  idea  of  a 
visible  Church  and  hierarchy,  vicariously  representing  Christ. 
From  this  point  of  view  it  is  easy  to  understand  Melanchthon's 
efforts — illogical  though  they  were — to  erect  an  edifice  of  "  pure 
doctrine  for  all  time  "  and  his  fondness  for  a  "  firm,  hard  and 
rigid  law  of  doctrine."  His  perplexity  and  wavering  were  only 
too  natural.  What  reliable  guarantee  was  Melanchthon  in  a 
position  to  offer — he  who  so  frequently  altered  his  teaching — 
that  his  own  interpretation  of  Scripture  exactly  rendered  the 
Divine  Revelation,  and  thus  constituted  "  pure  doctrine  "  firm 
and  unassailable  ?  Modern  theologians,  when  they  find  fault 
with  Melanchthon  for  his  assumption  of  authority  and  for  his 
alteration  of  Luther's  teaching,  have  certainly  some  justification 
for  their  strictures.2 

1  Page  vi. 

2  Karl  Miiller  ("  Symbole,"  p.  127  f.)  points  out  very  truly  that 
Melanchthon  was  in  the  habit  of  appealing  to  Luther's  authority,  who, 
for  his  part,  "  claimed  immutability  for  his  own  view  of  the  Gospel  "  ; 
and  further  that  later  followers  of  Luther,  for  instance,  Flacius,  thanks 
to  this  very  principle,  reverted  to  the  real  Luther,  and  furiously 
assailed  Melanchthon  for  his  deformation  of  the  Reformer.  According 
to  G.  Kriiger,  "  Melanchthon,"  p.  12,  Melanchthon  "  in  his  revisions 
(of  the  '  Loci  ' )  cut  himself  more  and  more  adrift  from  Luther,  not 
always  happily,  but  rather  to  the  detriment  of  the  cause."  Page  25  : 
"  Many  are  of  opinion  that  the  glorious  seed  of  the  German  Reformation 


MELANCHTHON  353 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  Luther,  as  we  shall  see  below, 
was  every  whit  as  undecided  as  Melanchthon  as  to  what  was  to 
be  understood  by  faith.  Like  his  friend,  Luther  too  alternates 
between  faith  as  an  assurance  of  salvation  and  faith  as  an  assent 
to  the  whole  Word  of  God.  The  only  difference  is,  that,  in  his 
earlier  years,  his  views  concerning  the  freedom  of  each  individual 
Christian  to  expound  the  Word  of  God  and  to  determine  what 
belonged  to  the  body  of  faith,  were  much  more  radical  than  at  a 
later  period.1  Hence  Melanchthon's  fondness  for  a  "  rigid  law  of 
doctrine  "  was  more  at  variance  with  the  earlier  than  with  the 
later  Luther.  From  the  later  Luther  he  differs  favourably  in 
this  ;  not  being  under  the  necessity  of  having  to  explain  away 
any  earlier  radical  views,  he  was  better  able  to  sum  up  more 
clearly  and  systematically  the  essentials  of  belief,  a  task,  more- 
over, which  appealed  to  his  natural  disposition.  Luther's  ideas 
on  this  subject  are  almost  exclusively  embodied  in  polemical 
writings  written  under  the  stress  of  great  excitement  ;  such 
statements  only  too  frequently  evince  exaggerations  of  the  worst 
sort,  due  to  the  passion  and  heat  of  the  moment. 

Of  special  importance  was  Melanchthon's  opposition  to 
Luther  on  one  of  the  most  practical  points  of  the  Church's 
life,  viz.  the  doctrine  of  the  Supper.  At  the  Table  which 
was  intended  to  be  the  most  sublime  expression  of  the 
charity  and  union  prevailing  among  the  faithful,  these  two 
minds  differed  hopelessly. 

It  was  useless  for  Luther  to  assure  Melanchthon  that  the 
Real  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  was  so  essential 
an  article  of  faith  that  if  a  man  did  not  believe  in  it  he 
believed  in  no  article  whatever.  From  the  commencement 
of  the  'thirties  Melanchthon  struck  out  his  own  course  and 
became  ever  more  convinced,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Real 
Presence  was  not  vouched  for  by  the  Bible.  Once  he  had 
gone  so  far  as  to  tell  the  Zwinglians  that  they  had  "  to  fear 
the  punishment  of  Heaven  "  on  account  of  their  erroneous 
doctrine.2  After  becoming  acquainted  with  the  "  Dialogus  " 
of  (Ecolampadius,  published  in  1530,  he,  however,  veered 
round  to  a  denial  of  the  Sacrament.    Yet,  with  his  superficial 

would  have  borne  much  richer  fruit  had  Melanchthon  been  different 
from  what  he  was."  Yet  Kriiger  also  says  :  "  Should  the  Luther  for 
whom  we  long  ever  come,  then  let  us  hope  that  a  Melanchthon  will  be 
his  right-hand  man,  that,  with  the  advent  of  the  Titan  who  overthrows 
the  old  and  founds  the  new,  the  spirit  of  peace  and  kindliness  may  still 
prevail  to  the  blessing  to  our  Fatherland  and  Church."  What  the  aims 
of  the  new  Luther  and  new  Melanchthon  are  to  be,  the  author  fails  to 
state. 

1  Above,  p.  8  ff.  2  Ellinger,  loc.  tit.,  p.  69. 

Ill —2   A 


354         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

rationalism  and  his  misinterpretation  of  certain  patristic 
statements,  (Ecolampadius  had  really  adduced  no  per- 
emptory objection  against  the  general,  traditional,  literal 
interpretation  of  the  words  of  consecration  to  which  Melanch- 
thon, as  well  as  Luther,  had  till  then  adhered.  In  view  of 
Melanchthon's  defective  theological  education  little  was 
needed  to  bring  about  an  alteration  in  his  views,  particularly 
when  the  alteration  was  in  the  direction  of  a  Humanistic 
softening  of  hard  words,  or  seemed  likely  to  provide  a  basis 
for  conciliation.  There  was  some  foundation  for  his  com- 
parison of  himself,  in  matters  of  theology,  to  the  donkey 
in  the  Palm-Sunday  mystery-play.1 

On  the  question  of  the  Sacrament,  the  theory  of  the 
"  Sacramentarians  "  came  more  and  more  to  seem  to  him 
the  true  one. 

Owing,  however,  to  his  timidity  and  the  fear  in  which  he 
stood  of  Luther,  he  did  not  dare  to  speak  out.  The  "  Loci  ' 
of  1535  is  remarkably  obscure  in  its  teaching  concerning  the 
Sacrament,  whilst,  in  a  letter  to  Camerarius  of  the  same 
year,  he  speaks  of  Luther's  view  as  "  alien  "  to  his  own, 
which,  however,  he  refuses  to  explain.2  Later  the  Cologne 
scheme  of  1543  in  which  Bucer,  to  Luther's  great  annoyance, 
evaded  the  question  of  the  Real  Presence,  obtained  Melanch- 
thon's approval.  When,  in  1540,  Melanchthon  made  public 
a  new  edition  of  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  (**  Confessio 
variola  "),  containing  alterations  of  greater  import  than 
those  of  the  previous  editions,  the  new  wording  of  the  10th 
Article  was  "  Melanchthonian  "  in  the  sense  that  it  failed 
to  exclude  "  the  doctrine  either  of  Melanchthon,  or  of 
Bucer,  or  of  Calvin  on  the  Supper."3  It  was  "  Melanch- 
thonian "  also  in  that  elasticity  and  ambiguity  which  has 
since  become  the  model  for  so  many  Protestant  formularies. 
In  order  to  secure  a  certain  outward  unity  it  became  usual 
to  avoid  any  explicitness  which  might  affright  such  as 
happened  to  have  scruples.  A  Melanchthonian  character 
was  thus  imparted  to  the  theology  which,  with  Melanchthon 
himself  as  leader,  was  to  guard  the  heritage  of  Luther. 

1  Kruger,  "  Ph.  Melanchthon,"  p.  12  :  "  Although  Melanchthon, 
the  academician,  did  not  look  upon  himself  as  a  born  theologian, 
although  he  likened  himself  to  the  donkey  in  the  mystery-play,  yet 
he  became  the  father  of  evangelical  theology." 

2  To  Camerarius,  January  10,  1535,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  822  :  "  meant 
sententiam  noli  nunc  require.re  fui  enim  nuncius  alienee  causce." 

3  Loofs,  ibid.,  p.  865. 


MELANCHTHON  355 

Points  of  Accord  between  Melanchthon  and  Luther. 

Melanchthon's  religious  character  naturally  exhibits  many 
points  of  contact  with  that  of  Luther. 

Only  to  a  limited  extent,  however,  does  this  hold  good  of 
the  "  inward  terrors."  Attempts  have  been  made  to  prove 
that,  like  Luther,  his  more  youthful  friend  believed  he  had 
experienced  within  him  the  salutary  working  of  the  new 
doctrine  of  Justification.1  But,  though,  in  his  "  Apologia  " 
to  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  in  other  writings,  he  extols, 
as  we  have  seen,  this  doctrine  as  alone  capable  of  imparting 
strength  and  consolation  in  times  of  severe  anxiety  of 
conscience  and  spiritual  desolation,  and  though  he  speaks 
of  the  "  certamina  conscientiaz"  and  of  the  assurance  of 
salvation  in  exactly  the  same  way  that  Luther  does,  still 
this  is  no  proof  of  his  having  experienced  anything  of  the 
sort  himself.  The  statements,  which  might  be  adduced  in 
plenty  from  his  private  letters,  lag  very  far  behind  Luther's 
characteristic  assurances  of  his  own  experience. 

Of  the  enlightenment  from  on  high  by  which  he  believed 
Luther's  divine  mission  as  well  as  his  own  work  as  a  teacher 
to  be  the  result,  of  prayer  for  their  common  cause  and  of 
the  joy  in  heaven  over  the  work,  labours  and  persecution 
they  had  endured,  he  can  speak  in  language  as  exalted  as 
his  master's,  though  not  with  quite  the  same  wealth  of 
imagination  and  eloquence.  That  the  Pope  is  Antichrist 
he  proves  from  the  Prophet  Daniel  and  other  biblical 
passages,  with  the  same  bitter  prejudice  and  the  same  pains- 
taking exegesis  as  Luther.  On  hearing  of  the  misshapen 
monster,  alleged  to  have  been  found  dead  in  the  Tiber  near 
Rome  in  1496,  his  superstition  led  him  to  write  a  work 
overflowing  with  hatred  against  the  older  Church  in  which 
in  all  seriousness  he  expounded  the  meaning  of  the  "  Pope- 
Ass,"  and  described  every  part  of  its  body  in  detail.  This 
work  was  published,  together  with  Luther's  on  the  Freiberg 
"  Monk-Calf."2  Melanchthon  there  says  :  "  The  feminine 
belly  and  breasts  of  the  monster  denote  the  Pope's  body, 
viz.  the  Cardinals,  Bishops,  Priests,  Monks,  Students,  and 
such-like  lascivious  folk  and  gluttonous  swine,  for  their  life 
is  nothing  but  feeding  and  swilling,  unchastity  and  luxury. 
.  .  .  The  fish  scales  on  the  arms,  legs,  and  neck  stand  for 

1  Dollinger,  "  Die  Reformation,"  1,  p.  358.    He  gives  no  references. 
8  Above,  p.  150  ff. 


356         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

the  secular  princes  and  lords  "  who  "  cling  to  the  Pope 
and  his  rule,"  etc.1  This  curious  pamphlet  ran  through  a 
number  of  editions,  nor  did  Melanchthon  ever  become 
aware  of  its  absurdity.  As  for  Luther,  in  1535  he  wrote  an 
Appendix,  entitled  "  Luther's  Amen  to  the  Interpretation 
of  the  Pope- Ass,"  confirming  his  friend's  reading  of  the 
portent.  "  Because  the  Divine  Majesty,"  so  we  there  read, 
"  has  Himself  created  and  manifested  it  [the  monstrosity], 
the  whole  world  ought  rightly  to  tremble  and  be  horror- 
struck."2 

In  his  fondness  for  the  superstitions  of  astrology  Melanch- 
thon went  further  than  Luther,  who  refused  to  believe  in  the 
influence  of  the  planets  on  man's  destiny,  and  in  the  horo- 
scopes on  which  his  companion  set  so  much  store.  Both, 
however,  were  at  one  in  their  acceptance  of  other  super- 
stitions, notably  of  diabolical  apparitions  even  of  the 
•strangest  kinds.3 

On  this  subject  we  learn  much  hitherto  unknown  from 
the  "  Analecta"  published  by  G.  Loesche  in  1892.4  Melanch- 
thon, for  instance,  relates  that  a  doctor  at  Tubingen  "  kept 
the  devil  in  a  bottle,  as  magicians  are  wont  to  do."5  Amsdorf 
had  once  heard  the  devil  grunting.  Melanchthon  himself  had 
heard  a  tremendous  noise  on  the  roof  of  the  cathedral  at 
Magdeburg,  which  was  a  presage  of  coming  warlike  dis- 
turbances ;  the  same  portent  had  been  observed  at  Witten- 
berg previous  to  the  besieging  of  the  town.6  To  what  extent 
people  might  become  tools  of  the  devil  was  evident,  so  he 
told  his  students,  from  the  example  of  two  witches  at 
Berlin,  who  had  murdered  a  child  in  order  to  raise  a  snow- 
storm by  means  of  impious  rites,  and  who  were  now  awaiting 
punishment  at  the  hands  of  the  authorities.7  It  was  not, 
however,  so  easy  to  deal  with  witches.  At  Wittenberg  one, 
while  undergoing  torture  on  the  rack,  had  changed  herself 
into  a  cat  and  mewed.8  Twelve  years  previously  a  ghost 
had  killed  a  fisherman  on  the  Elster.9    Hence  it  was  neces- 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  11,  p.  378  ;  Erl.  ed.,  29,  p.  5. 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  29,  p.  7.  3  Vol.  v.,  xxxi.  1  and  4. 

4  "  Anal.  Lutherana  et  Melanchthoniana.  Tischreden  Luthers  unci 
Ausspriiche  Melanchthons,"  1892  (usually  quoted  here  as  "  Mathesius, 
Aufzeichnungen  "). 

5  Page  178.  6  Page  158.  7  Page  143.  8  Page  178. 

9  Page  180.  On  Melanchthon's  belief  in  devils  and  witches  see 
K.  Hartfelder,  "  Hist.  Taschenbuch,"  1889,  p.  252  ff.  Cp.  N.  Paulus, 
"  Hexenwahn  und  Hexenprozess  vornehmlich  im  16.  Jahrhundert," 
1910,  pp.  27,  41,  121. 


MELANCHTHON  357 

sary  to  look  out  for  good  remedies  and  counter-spells 
against  witchcraft.  "  Where  tortoises  were  to  be  met  with 
it  was  held  that  neither  poison  nor  magic  could  work 
any  harm."1 

According  to  Melanchthon  the  signs  in  the  heavens  must 
never  be  disregarded  when  studying  the  times.  Two  fiery 
serpents,  which  had  recently  been  seen  at  Eisenberg  engaged 
in  a  struggle  in  the  sky,  were  an  infallible  presage  of 
"  coming  war  in  the  Church,"  especially  as  a  fiery  cross  had 
shown  itself  above  the  serpents.2  By  careful  calculations 
he  had  ascertained  that  the  end  of  the  world,  the  approach 
of  which  was  in  any  case  foretold  by  the  wickedness  of  men, 
would  take  place  before  the  year  1582. 3 

His  friend  Camerarius  remarked  with  annoyance  that 
"  many  persons  had  made  notes  of  Melanchthon's  private 
conversations  and  thus  affixed  a  stigma  to  his  name."4 
This  complaint  reminds  us  of  a  drollery,  none  too  delicate, 
contained  in  the  "  Analecta  "  among  the  "  Dicta  Melanch- 
tJionis  "  concerning  the  flatulence  of  a  monk.5  Even  the 
editor  admits  that  one  cannot  think  very  highly  of  these 
sayings  of  Melanchthon,  especially  when  we  remember  that 
the  "  Dicta  "  were  uttered  at  lectures  which  the  speaker 
seemed  in  the  habit  of  enlivening  with  all  kinds  of  examples 
and  vulgarities.  He  adds,  "  Our  discovery  reveals  the 
very  low  standard  of  the  lectures  then  delivered  at  the 
University." 

Loesche  also  remarks  that  "  these  Dicta  have  contributed 
to  destroy  the  legend  of  Melanchthon's  gentleness  and 
kindliness."6 

In  connection  with  the  legend  of  his  kindliness,  Loesche  refers 
to  a  remark  made  by  Melanchthon,  according  to  the  "  Dicta," 
about  the  year  1553  :  "  Whoever  murders  a  tyrant,  as  did  those 
who  murdered  N.  in  Lithuania,  offers  a  holocaust  to  God."7  Such 
views  regarding  the  lawfulness  of  murdering  tyrants  he  seems  to 
have  derived  from  his  study  of  the  classics.  He  had,  moreover, 
already  given  expression  to  them  long  before  this,  referring  to 
Henry  VIII.  of  England,  who  had  ceased  to  favour  the  Reforma- 
tion as  conducted  in  Germany.  In  a  letter  to  his  friend  Veit 
Dietrich  he  wishes,  that  God  would  send  a  brave  assassin  to  rid 
the  world  of  the  tyrant.8 

1  Page  184.  2  Page  160.  3  Page  161. 

4  "  Vita  Melanchthonis,"  c.  22. 

5  Page  177.  6  Page  19.  7  Page  159. 


8     " 


Corp.  ref.,"  3,  p.  1076.    Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  400. 


358         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

Melanchthon  was  in  reality  far  from  tolerant,  and  in  his 
demands  for  the  punishment  of  heretics  he  went  to  great  lengths. 
It  is  generally  known  how  he  gave  it  as  his  opinion,  in  1557,  that 
the  execution  of  the  Spanish  doctor,  Michael  Servetus,  which 
took  place  at  Geneva  in  1553  at  the  instance  of  Calvin,  was  a 
"pious  and  memorable  example  for  posterity."1  He  wrote  to 
Calvin,  on  October  14,  1554,  concerning  the  proceedings  against 
Servetus,  who  had  denied  the  Trinity  as  well  as  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  as  follows  :  "I  agree  entirely  with  your  sentence  ;  I  also 
declare  that  your  authorities  have  acted  wisely  and  justly  in 
putting  this  blasphemous  man  to  death."2  When  the  severity  of 
the  step  was  blamed  by  some,  he  expressed  his  surprise  at  the 
objectors  in  a  letter  of  August  20,  1555,  to  Bullinger  at  Zurich, 
and  sent  him  a  little  treatise  defending  and  recommending 
similar  sentences.3  He  there  proves  that  false  doctrines  should 
be  treated  as  notorious  blasphemies,  and  that  the  secular  authori- 
ties were  accordingly  bound  by  the  Divine  law  to  punish  them 
with  the  utmost  severity  ;  Divine  chastisements  were  to  be 
apprehended  should  the  authorities,  out  of  a  false  sense  of  pity, 
show  themselves  remiss  in  extirpating  erroneous  doctrines.  Such 
was  indeed  the  teaching  at  Wittenberg,  as  evinced,  for  instance, 
by  a  disputation  at  the  University,  where  Melanchthon's  friend 
and  colleague,  George  Major,  branded  the  contrary  opinion  as 
"impudent  and  abominable."4 

Characteristic  of  Melanchthon,  though  hitherto  little  noticed, 
were  the  severity  and  obstinacy  with  which  he  sought  to  carry 
his  intolerance  into  practice.  He  relentlessly  called  in  the  assist- 
ance of  the  secular  authorities  against  the  canons  of  Cologne  who 
had  remained  faithful  to  the  religion  of  their  fathers.5  As  to  his 
opponents  within  his  own  fold  he  demanded  that  the  rulers 
should  punish  them,  particularly  the  Anabaptists,  not  merely  as 
sedition-mongers  and  rebels,  but  on  account  of  their  doctrinal 
peculiarities.  Their  rejection  of  infant  baptism  he  regarded  as 
one  of  those  blasphemies  which  ought  to  be  punished  by  death  ; 
the  denial  of  original  sin  and  the  theory  that  the  Sacraments  were 
merely  signs  he  looked  upon  as  similar  blasphemies.  At  least 
those  Anabaptists,  "  who  are  the  heads  and  leaders,"  and  who 
refuse  to  abjure  their  errors,  "  should  be  put  to  death  by  the 
sword  as  seditious  men  and  blasphemers."  "  Others,  who  have 
been  led  astray,  and  who,  though  not  so  defiant,  refuse  to  recant, 
should  be  treated  as  madmen  and  sent  to  jail."6 

1  "  Corp.  ref.,"  9,  p.  133,  in  a  work  against  Thamer.  Cp.  N.  Paulus, 
"  Servets  Hinrichtung  im  lutherischen  Urteil,"  "Hist.-pol.  Blatter," 
136,  1905,  p.  161  ff.,  and  "  Luther  und  die  Gewissensfreiheit,"  1905, 
pp.  40-53 ;  likewise  "  Protestantismus  und  Toleranz  in  16.  Jahrh.,"  1911. 

2  "  Corp.  ref.,"  8,  p.  362.  3  Ibid.,  p.  524. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  852.  5  Ellinger,  loc.  tit.,  p.  602. 

6  Paulus,  "  Luther  und  die  Gewissensfreiheit,"  p.  47  ff.  Paulus 
quotes  from  a  pamphlet  of  Melanchthon's — which  escaped  the  notice 
of  the  editors  of  his  works — entitled  "  Prozess,  wie  es  soil  gehalten 
werden  mit  den  Wiedertaufern,"  and  dated  1557.  Here  we  read 
that  even  the  Anabaptist  articles  which  did  not  concern  the  secular 


MELANCHTHON  359 

Of  these  principles  concerning  the  coercion  of  both  Catholics 
and  sectarians  we  have  an  enduring  memorial  in  Melanchthon's 
work  dated  1539,  and  entitled  "  On  the  office  of  Princes."1  Nor 
did  he  fail  to  incite  the  Lutheran  authorities  to  adopt,  in  the 
interests  of  public  worship,  coercive  measures  against  negligent 
Protestants  :  "I  should  be  pleased  were  the  authorities  to  make 
a  stringent  rule  of  driving  the  people  to  church,  particularly  on 
holidays."2 

His  fondness  for  the  use  of  coercion  in  furthering  his  own 
religious  views  is  apparent  throughout  his  career,  and  how 
congenial  it  was  to  him  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  he  manifested 
this  leaning  at  the  very  outset  of  the  reforms  at  Wittenberg,  even 
before  Luther  had  seen  his  way  to  do  the  same. 

As  early  as  October  20,  1521,  subsequent  to  the  changes  in 
public  worship  which  had  been  effected  by  the  apostate  Augus- 
tinians  supported  by  some  Wittenberg  professors  such  as  Carl- 
stadt,  Amsdorf,  and  Jonas,  Melanchthon  in  a  written  admonition 
told  the  Elector,  that,  as  a  Christian  Prince,  he  should  "  make 
haste  to  abrogate  the  abuse  of  the  Mass  "  in  his  country  and 
principality,  unmindful  of  the  calumnies  to  which  this  might 
give  rise,  "  in  order  that  your  Electoral  Highness  may  not,  like 
Capharnaum,  be  reproached  by  Christ  on  the  Last  Day  on 
account  of  the  great  grace  and  mercy  which,  without  any  work 
of  ours,  has  been  shown  in  your  Electoral  Highness's  lands,  the 
Holy  Evangel  being  revealed,  manifested,  and  brought  to  light, 
and  yet  all  to  no  purpose  "  ;  God  would  require  at  his  hands  an 
account  for  the  great  grace  of  Luther's  mission.3 

In  this  admonition,  brimful  of  the  most  bitter  prejudice,  we 
find  for  the  first  time  the  principle  laid  down,  that  the  "  salvation 
of  his  soul  required  of  a  Christian  Prince  "  the  prohibition  of 
the  olden  Catholic  worship. 

In  point  of  fact  Melanchthon  was  frequently  ahead  of  Luther 
in  carrying  the  latter's  theories  to  their  logical  conclusion,  utterly 
regardless  of  rights  infringed.  Thus,  for  instance,  he  was  before 
Luther  in  reaching  the  conclusion  that  religious  vows  were 
invalid. 

The  conviction  and  enthusiasm  with  which,   from  the 

government  were  to  be  punished  as  blasphemies,  as  for  instance  the 
rejection  of  infant  baptism  and  the  denial  of  the  Trinity.  Such  articles 
were  not  to  be  regarded  as  of  no  account,  "  for  the  Jewish  fallacy  that 
Christ  did  not  exist  previous  to  His  Incarnation  is  plainly  blasphemous, 
and  so  is  the  denial  of  original  sin,"  etc.  Then  follows  the  list  of 
penalties.  The  memorandum  is  signed  by  the  theologians  Melanch- 
thon, J.  Brenz,  J.  Marbach,  J.  Andreae,  G.  Karg,  P.  Eber,  J.  Pistorius 
and  J.  Rungius. 

1  Paulus,  ibid.,  p.  45  :  "  No  less  than  nine  reasons  are  alleged  to 
prove  that  Christian  rulers,  like  the  Jewish  kings,  are  bound  by 
Divine  law  to  root  out  idolatry." 

2  Letter  to  the  Margrave  George  of  Brandenburg,  September  14, 
1531,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  538. 

3  Ellinger,  loc.  cit.,  p.  154.    Paulus,  loc.  cit.,  p.  5. 


360         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

very  outset,  he  took  Luther's  side  was  due,  as  he  repeatedly 
avers,  to  motives  of  a  moral  and  religious  order  ;  he  backed 
up  Luther,  so  he  assures  us,  because  he  hoped  thereby  to 
promote  a  reform  of  morals.  "  I  am  conscious  of  having 
taken  up  the  study  of  theology  for  no  other  reason  than  to 
amend  our  lives."1  What  he  here  states  as  a  young  man  of 
twenty-eight,  he  made  use  of  to  console  and  encourage 
himself  with  later.  What  he  had  in  mind  was,  of  course,  the 
ostensibly  hopeless  decline  of  morals  under  Popery.  This 
he  painted  in  vivid  colours  borrowed  from  Luther,  for  he 
himself  had  never  come  into  any  such  close  contact  with  the 
abuses  as  would  have  enabled  him  to  reach  a  reliable  and 
independent  opinion  of  his  own.  Having  thoroughly  aroused 
his  hatred  of  the  Papacy  and  convinced  himself  of  the 
urgent  necessity  of  combating  the  vicious  decadence  and 
intellectual  darkness  brought  into  the  world  by  Antichrist, 
he  is  wont  to  depict  the  ideal  of  his  own  thoughts  and 
efforts  ;  this  was  the  "  disciplina  et  obedientia  populi  Dei  "  to 
be  achieved  by  means  of  an  education  at  once  religious  and 
Humanistic. 

3.   Melanchthon  at  the  Zenith  of  His  Career. 
His  Mental  Sufferings 

Various  traits  of  Melanchthon  already  alluded  to  may 
serve  favourably  to  impress  the  unbiassed  reader,  even 
though  his  views  be  different.  We  now  proceed  to  sum 
these  up,  supplementing  them  by  a  few  other  details  of  a 
similar  nature. 

Favourable  Traits. 

The  many  touching  and  heartfelt  complaints  concerning 
the  moral  disorders  prevalent  in  the  Protestant  Churches 
are  peculiar  to  Melanchthon.  Luther,  it  is  true,  also 
regretted  them,  but  his  regret  is  harshly  expressed  and 
he  is  disposed  to  lay  the  blame  on  the  wrong  shoulders. 
Melanchthon,  with  his  praiseworthy  concern  for  discipline 
and  ordered  doctrine,  was  naturally  filled  with  deep  mis- 
givings when  the  preaching  of  the  Evangel  resulted  in 
moral  disorder  and  waywardness  in  views  and  doctrine. 
This  explains  why  he  was  so  ready  to  turn  to  the  authori- 
ties   to    implore    their    assistance    in     establishing    that 

1  Ellinger,  ibid.,  p.  615. 


MELANCHTHON  361 

stable,  Christian  government  which  was  his  ideal.      (Below, 
p.  372  f.) 

Above  all,  he  was  desirous  of  seeing  the  foundations  of  the 
Empire  and  the  rights  of  the  Emperor  safeguarded,  so  long 
as  the  new  Evangel  was  not  endangered.  None  of  those  who 
thought  as  he  did  at  Wittenberg  were  more  anxious  lest  the 
religious  movement  should  jeopardise  the  peace  ;  in  none  of 
them  is  the  sense  of  responsibility  so  marked  as  in  Melanch- 
thon.  Being  by  nature  as  well  as  by  education  less  strong- 
hearted  than  Luther,  he  was  not  so  successful  as  the  latter 
in  repressing  his  misery  at  the  consequences  of  his  position. 
To  this  his  correspondence,  which  is  full  of  interest  and 
characteristic  of  his  moods,  is  a  striking  witness. 

Yet,  amidst  all  the  complaints  we  find  in  these  letters, 
we  hardly  come  across  any  statement  concerning  personal 
troubles  of  conscience.  As  a  layman,  he  had  not  to  reproach 
himself  with  any  apostasy  from  the  sacred  office  of  the 
priesthood.  Unlike  Luther  and  his  other  friends,  from  his 
youth  upward  his  studies  and  his  profession  had  not  been 
ecclesiastical.  The  others  had  once  been  religious  or  priests 
and  had,  by  their  marriage,  violated  a  strict  law  of  the 
Church,  which  was  not  the  case  with  him. 

His  fine  mental  powers  he  devoted  to  the  service  of 
Humanism,  seeking  to  promote  the  cause  of  education, 
particularly  at  the  University  of  Wittenberg,  but  also  else- 
where, by  his  many-sided  writings  in  the  domain  of  worldly 
learning  and  culture.  We  need  only  recall  his  works  on 
rhetoric  and  grammar,  on  the  ancient  philosophy,  more 
particularly  the  Aristotelian,  on  dialectics,  ethics,  and 
psychology.  Such  works  from  his  ready  but  careful  pen 
created  for  him  a  great  and  permanent  field  of  activity,  and 
at  the  same  time  helped  to  distract  him  amidst  the  sad 
realities  of  life  and  his  own  bitter  experiences.  He  openly 
declared  his  preference  for  Humanistic  studies,  stating  that 
he  had  been  drawn  into  the  theological  controversies  quite 
against  his  will. 

It  was  to  his  philosophic  mode  of  thought  that  he  owed 
the  self-control  which  he  possessed  in  so  remarkable  a 
degree.  Often  we  are  put  in  mind  of  the  stoic  when  we  hear 
him,  the  scholar,  giving  the  soft  answer  to  the  insults  heaped 
on  him  in  his  own  circle  and  then  quietly  proceeding  on  his 
own  way.    And  yet  his  character  was  irritable  and  prone  to 


362         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

passionate  anger,  as  on  one  occasion  some  lazy  students  at 
the  University  learnt  to  their  cost.  Hence  his  moderation 
in  his  dealings  with  his  Wittenberg  colleagues  is  all  the 
more  remarkable. 

In  his  family  life  Melanchthon  has  been  described  as  a 
model  of  industry,  love  of  order  and  domesticity.  He  rose 
before  daybreak  in  order  to  deal  with  his  large  correspond- 
ence ;  his  letters,  full  of  sympathy  for  friends  and  those  who 
stood  in  need  of  help,  were  carefully  written,  and  usually 
couched  in  Latin.  German  he  did  not  write  so  fluently  as 
Luther.  In  his  Latin  letters  to  Humanist  friends  he  often 
drops  into  Greek,  particularly  when  anxious  to  conceal 
anything,  for  instance,  when  he  has  to  complain  of  Luther. 
His  intimate  and  friendly  intercourse  with  kindred  spirits, 
such  as  Camerarius,  is  a  pleasing  trait  in  his  character  ;  not 
less  so  is  the  benevolence  and  unselfishness  his  letters  attest, 
which  indeed  he  often  carried  so  far  as  to  deprive  himself  of 
the  needful.  His  home  life  was  a  happy  one  and  his  children 
were  well  brought  up,  though  his  son-in-law,  Sabinus,  a 
man  of  great  talent,  caused  him  much  grief  by  his  want  of 
conjugal  fidelity,  which  was  a  source  of  scandal  to  the 
family  and  also  damaged  the  reputation  of  Wittenberg. 

Melanchthon *s  Relations  with  Luther. 

In  Melanchthon's  mental  history,  no  less  than  in  the 
external  circumstances  of  his  life,  stands  out  prominently, 
his  connection  with  Luther,  of  which  we  have  already 
recounted  the  beginnings. 

The  remarkable  relations  existing  between  Melanchthon 
and  Luther  abound  in  psychological  traits  characteristic 
of  both.  So  intimate  were  they  that  others  of  the  party 
were  disposed  to  see  in  their  friendship  the  excellent  work- 
ing of  the  evangelical  spirit,  the  harmony  and  union  of 
mind  of  the  two  most  eminent  leaders  of  the  new  move- 
ment. 

To  Melanchthon  Luther's  higher  mission  was  as  good  as  proved 
(above  pp.  322,  355).  To  Capito  he  declared  :  "  I  am  convinced 
that  he  carries  out  his  work  not  merely  with  prudence  but  with 
the  best  of  consciences,  since  he  appears  to  have  been  destined 
by  God  for  this  purpose  ;  for  never  could  one  man  carry  so  many 
along  with  him  unless  he  were  animated  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 
He  has  not  acted  harshly  towards  any,  save  some  of  the  sophists, 
and  even  had  he  done  so,  we  must  remember  that  in  our  times  a 


MELANCHTHON  363 

sharp  tongue  is  needed,  since  he  is  the  first  who  has  preached 
the  Gospel  for  a  long  while.  Leave  him  to  the  working  of  his  own 
spirit  and  resist  not  the  will  of  God  !  This  matter  must  not  be 
judged  by  human  standards.  The  Gospel  is  proclaimed  that  it 
may  be  an  offence  to  the  godless  and  that  the  sheep  of  Israel  may 
return  to  their  God."1 

Thus  Melanchthon  in  1521.  We  may  compare  the  promises 
Luther  held  out  to  those  who  were  filled  with  faith  to  his  own 
happy  expectations  of  the  outcome  of  his  relations  with  Melanch- 
thon :  "  There,  faith  sets  to  work  with  joy  and  charity,"  "  to  serve 
others  and  to  be  helpful  to  them  "  ;  the  consoling  words  of 
St.  Paul  (Phil.  ii.  1  ff.)  were  being  fulfilled  in  brotherly  unity, 
"  consolation  in  Christ,  comfort  of  charity,  society  of  the  spirit, 
bowels  of  commiseration,"  and  the  result  would  be  a  "  free, 
willing,  happy  life  "  ;  "  when  the  heart  thus  hears  the  voice  of 
Christ,  it  must  be  joyful  and  receive  entire  consolation."2 

In  Melanchthon's  case,  however,  these  promises  were  not 
realised  in  the  event ;  on  the  contrary,  inward  disappoint- 
ment and  mental  suffering  were  increasingly  to  become  his 
portion. 

Between  1528  and  1530  he  openly  admitted  that  he  was 
burdened  with  cares  and  troubles  beyond  measure,  and  only 
consoled  himself  with  the  thought  that  the  Day  of  Judgment 
must  be  at  the  door.  He  was  suffering  all  the  pangs  of  hell  on 
account  of  the  sights  he  was  forced  to  witness,  and  would  much 
rather  die  than  continue  to  suffer  ;  the  state  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal affairs  caused  him  unspeakable  pain,  and  not  a  day  passed 
that  he  did  not  long  for  death.3  Complaints  such  as  these  are  to 
be  found  in  his  correspondence  till  the  very  end  of  his  life,  so  that 
his  most  recent  Protestant  biographer  speaks  of  his  letters,  more 
particularly  those  to  Camerarius,  as  witnessing  to  the  "  anxiety, 
misery  and  profound  mental  suffering  "  which  "  consumed  him  "  ; 
he  also  alludes  to  the  "  wine  trodden  out  with  such  bitter  pain  " 
which  posterity  enjoys,  thanks  to  his  labours.  "  Most  of  these 
productions  [the  letters  to  Camerarius]  it  is  impossible  to  read 
without  feeling  the  deepest  sympathy."  "  Even  his  severest 
accuser  will  assuredly  be  disarmed  when  he  sees  what  Melanchthon 
suffered."4 

At  the  commencement  of  the  'thirties  he  bewails  his  "  un- 
happy fate  "  which  had  entangled  him  in  religious  disputes,5 
and,  seven  years  later,  we  have  this  startling  confession  :    "  The 

1  Ellinger,  ibid.,  p.  157. 

2  "  Von  der  Freyheit  eynes  Christen  Menschen,"  "  Werke,"  Weim. 
ed.,  7,  p.  34  f.,  29  ;   Erl.  ed.,  27,  pp.  195  f.,  187. 

3  Cp.  above,  p.  324  ff. 

4  Ellinger,  loc.  cjt.,  pp.  604.  608. 

5  To  Bishop  Andreas  Cricius,  October  27,  1532,  in  Kawerau,  "Die 
Versuche,  Melanchthon  zur  kath.  Kirche  zuruckzufuhren,"  p.  13, 
from  T.  Wierzbowski,  "  Materialy,"  etc.,  Warsaw,  1900. 


364         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

cruel  dolours  of  soul  which  I  have  endured  for  three  years  on  end, 
and  the  other  cares  which  each  day  brings,  have  wasted  me  to 
such  an  extent  that  I  fear  I  cannot  live  much  longer."1  In  the 
next  decade  we  have  another  confession  to  the  same  effect :  "  I 
shall  not  be  sorry  to  leave  this  prison  ('  ergastulum  ')  when  he 
[Luther,  whom  Melanchthon  here  calls  '  infestus  ']  throws  me 
over."2 

The  various  stages  of  his  unhappy  life,  the  outward  influ- 
ences under  which  he  came  and  many  other  accompanying 
circumstances,  are  now  known  from  various  sources. 

As  early  as  1523  and  1524  Melanchthon  began  to  free 
himself  to  some  extent  from  the  spell  cast  over  him  by  his 
domineering  friend.  He  was  in  the  first  instance  repelled  by 
the  coarseness  of  Luther's  literary  style,  and  also  by  much 
which  seemed  to  him  exaggerated  in  his  ways,  more  par- 
ticularly by  his  denial  of  free-will.  (Above,  p.  340  f.)  The 
sensitive  nature  of  Melanchthon  also  took  offence  at  certain 
things  in  Luther's  private  life,  and  his  own  observations 
were  confirmed  by  the  sharp  eyes  of  his  bosom  friend 
Camerarius  (Joachim  Kammermeister),  who  had  migrated 
to  Wittenberg  in  1522.  Their  exchange  of  secret  confidences 
concerning  Wittenberg  affairs  is  unmistakable.  Melanchthon 
felt  very  lonely  after  the  departure  of  Camerarius  and 
missed  the  stimulating  intellectual  intercourse  at  Wittenberg, 
which  had  become  a  necessity  to  him.  Frequently  he  com- 
plains, even  as  early  as  1524,  that  he  met  with  no  sympathy, 
and  sometimes  he  does  not  exclude  even  Luther.  At 
Wittenberg  he  felt  like  a  lame  cobbler.3  "There  is  no  one 
amongst  my  comrades  and  friends  whose  conversation 
appeals  to  me.  All  the  others  [Luther  is  here  excepted] 
have  no  time  for  me,  or  else  they  belong  to  the  common 
herd  ('  vulgus  sunt  ')."4  Any  real  friendship  was  out  of  the 
question  at  the  University,  since  there  were  no  kindred 
spirits  ;   his  intimacies  were  mere  "  wolves'  friendships,"5  to 

1  To  Camerarius,  November  27,  1539,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  3,  p.  840  : 
"  dolores  animi  acerbissimi  et  continui." 

2  To  Bucer,  August  28,  1544,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  5,  p.  474.  In  the  same 
letter  :  "  noster  Pericles  [Luther]  rursus  tonare  coepit  vehementissime  "  ; 
Amsdorf  was  inciting  him  against  the  writer  on  account  of  the  question 
of  the  Sacrament. 

3  To  Camerarius,  October  31,  1524,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  1,  p.  683. 

4  To  the  same,  March  23,  1525,  ibid.,  p.  729  :  "  Reliqui  vulgus 
sunt." 

5  To  the  same,  July  4,  1526,  ibid.,  p.  804.  See  his  letter  on  Luther's 
marriage  in  our  vol.  ii.,  p.  176. 


MELANCHTHON  365 

use  an  expression  of  Plato's.  He  envies,  so  he  says,  those 
who  were  surrounded  by  studious  pupils  and  could  devote 
all  their  energies  to  study,  far  from  the  turmoil  of  religious 
controversy. 

The  letter  of  censure  which  he  wrote  on  Luther's  marriage 
is  a  strange  mixture  of  annoyance  that  this  step  should  be 
taken  at  so  critical  a  juncture,  of  displeasure  at  Luther's 
thoughtless  buffoonery  and  frivolous  behaviour,  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  of  forbearance,  nay,  admiration,  for 
the  man  who,  in  other  respects,  still  appeared  to  him  so 
great.  "  That  his  friends  [Melanchthon  and  Camerarius] 
had  privately  criticised  Luther's  behaviour  is  proved  be- 
yond a  doubt  from  a  remark  in  the  letter  on  Luther's 
marriage."1 

The  contrast  between  their  wives  was  also  unfavourable  to 
the  amity  existing  between  Luther  and  Melanchthon.  The 
daughter  of  the  Burgomaster  of  Wittenberg,  Catherine 
Krapp,  whom  Melanchthon  had  married,  seems  to  have 
been  a  rather  haughty  patrician,  who  was  disposed  to  look 
down  on  Catherine  von  Bora,  whose  family,  though  aristo- 
cratic, had  fallen  on  evil  days.  In  a  letter  of  a  friend  of 
Luther  the  "  tyranny  of  women  "  is  once  referred  to  as  a 
disturbing  factor,  and  the  context  shows  that  the  complaint 
was  drawn  forth  by  Melanchthon 's  wife  and  not  by 
Bora.2 

Melanchthon's  troubles  were,  however,  mostly  caused  by 
the  differences,  literary  and  theological,  which  sprang  up 
between  Luther  and  himself,  and  by  his  experiences  and 
disappointments  in  Church  matters  and  questions  of 
conscience. 

Luther's  violent  and  incautious  manner  of  proceeding 
led  him  to  surmise,  to  his  great  regret,  that  many  had 
attached  themselves  to  the  cause  of  the  innovations  merely 
from  a  desire  for  the  freedom  of  the  flesh,  and  that  the 
rising  against  the  older  Church  had  let  loose  a  whole  current 

1  Ellinger,  ibid.,  p.  619,  p.  188,  n.  Melanchthon  reminds  Camerarius 
that  they  had  "  often  censured  "  Luther's  pcofAoXoxLa.  Cp.  vol.  ii.,  p. 
178.  Camerarius  altered  not  only  this  letter  in  the  printed  edition, 
but  also  others ;  for  instance,  that  mentioned  above,  p.  364,  note  4, 
about  the  "  vulgus." 

2  Cruciger  to  Veit  Dietrich,  August  4,  1537,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  3,  p.  398  : 
"  Cum  alia  multa,  turn  maxime  obstat  i]  yvvaiKOTvpoLvvis."  K.  Sell,- 
"  Phil.  Melanchthon  und  die  deutsche  Reformation,"  1898,  p.  57  ; 
"  The  wives  do  not  seem  to  have  got  on  so  well." 


366         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

of  base  elements.1  The  virulence  with  which  Luther 
attacked  everything  could,  in  Melanchthon's  opinion,  only 
tend  to  alienate  the  better  sort,  i.e.  the  very  people  whose 
help  was  essential  to  the  carrying  out  of  any  real  reform. 

As  early  as  1525  he  began  to  find  fault  with  Luther's  too 
turbulent  ways.  In  1526,  on  the  appearance  of  Erasmus's 
"  Hyperaspistes,"  the  scholar's  incisive  and  brilliant  rejoinder 
to  Luther's  "  De  servo  Arbitrio,"  Melanchthon  feared  some 
unhappy  outbreak,  and,  accordingly,  he  urgently  begged  the 
latter  to  keep  silence  in  the  interests  of  truth  and  justice,  which 
he  thought  to  be  more  likely  on  the  side  of  Erasmus.  To 
Camerarius  he  wrote,  on  April  11,  1526:  "Oh,  that  Luther 
would  hold  his  tongue  !  I  had  hoped  that  advancing  years  and 
his  experience  of  the  prevailing  evils  would  have  quietened  him, 
but  now  I  see  that  he  is  growing  even  more  violent  ('  subinde 
vehementiorem  fieri  ')  in  every  struggle  into  which  he  enters.  This 
causes  me  great  pain."2  Erasmus  himself  he  assured  later  by 
letter,  that  he  had  "  never  made  any  secret  of  this  at  Wittenberg," 
i.e.  of  his  displeasure  at  the  tracts  Luther  had  published  against 
the  great  Humanist,  for  one  reason  "  because  they  were  not 
conducive  to  the  public  welfare."3 

It  was  inevitable  that  a  certain  coolness  should  spring  up 
between  them,  for  though  Melanchthon  was  supple  enough  to  be 
cautious  in  his  personal  dealings  with  Luther,  yet  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  many  of  his  strictures  duly  reached  the  ears  of  his 
friend.  The  more  determined  Lutherans,  such  as  Aquila  and 
Amsdorf,  even  formed  a  party  to  thwart  his  plans.4  Melanchthon 
also  complains  of  opponents  at  the  Court.  Those  who  had  been 
dissatisfied  with  his  doings  at  the  Visitation  "  fanned  the  flames 
at  Court,"  and  so  much  did  he  suffer  through  these  intrigues  that, 

1  "  Many  of  the  people,"  he  writes  in  1524,  "  attach  themselves  to 
Luther  as  the  champion  of  freedom  ;  they  are  weary  of  the  good  old 
customs  .  .  .  many  of  them  think  that  Luther  merely  teaches  con- 
tempt of  human  traditions."  (In  the  Epitome  addressed  to  the  Land- 
grave of  Hesse  [above,  p.  348,  n.  1].)  Cp.  Dollinger,  loc.  cit.,  3,  p.  301. 
He  laments  in  similar  fashion  the  results  of  Luther's  behaviour  in  1527, 
complaining  that  the  people  had  become  "  over-confident  and  had 
lost  the  sense  of  fear  "  because  they  heard  nothing  about  penance. 
This  one-sided  preaching  of  the  Gospel  resulted  "  in  greater  errors  and 
sins  than  had  ever  existed  before."  Dollinger,  ibid.,  3,  p.  302.  Melanch- 
thon regarded  the  writings  of  his  friend,  particularly  on  account  of  their 
exaggeration,  with  "  ever-increasing  distrust."  "  The  great  man's 
boisterousness  began  to  alarm  him.  .  .  .  There  is  no  doubt  that  it  was 
from  this  quarter  that  the  misgivings  first  arose  which  nipped  and 
caused  to  wither  the  blossoms  of  their  previous  so  intimate  relation- 
ship."    Thus  Ellinger,  "Melanchthon,"  p.  187. 

2  "  Corp.  ref.,"  1,  p.  794.  3  May  12,  1536.    Ibid.,  3,  p.  68  seq% 
4  Caspar   Aquila,    as   early   as    1527,    accused   him   of   abandoning 

Christianity  and  of  being  a  Papist.  Cp.  Melanchthon  to  Aquila, 
November  17,  1527.  "  Corp.  ref.,"  4,  p.  961.  Cp.  the  letter  to  the 
same  of  the  middle  of  November,  1527,  ibid.,  p.  959. 


MELANCHTHON  367 

according  to  a  later  statement  of  his,  his  "  life  was  actually  in 
danger  "  ("  ut  vita  mea  in  discrimen  veniret  "J.1 

So  greatly  was  he  overwhelmed  that,  in  1527,  he  even  declared 
he  would  rather  his  son  should  die  than  occupy  a  position  of 
such  sore  anxiety  as  his  own.2 

In  spite  of  the  growing  independence  displayed  by  Melanchthon, 
Luther  continued  to  show  him  the  greatest  consideration  and 
forbearance,  and  even  to  heap  literary  praise  on  him,  as  he  did, 
for  instance,  in  his  Preface  to  Melanchthon 's  very  mediocre 
Exposition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians.3  He  was  all  the 
more  set  on  attaching  Melanchthon  to  himself  and  his  cause  by 
such  eulogies,  because  he  dreaded  lest  his  comrade's  preference 
for  his  Humanistic  labours  should  one  day  deprive  the  new 
faith  of  his  so  powerful  support. 

The  command  of  the  Elector  was  afterwards  to  send  the 
learned  but  timid  man  to  the  Diets,  notwithstanding  that  he 
was  quite  unsuited  for  political  labours  on  the  great  stage  of  the 
world.  We  know  already  what  his  feelings  were  at  Spires  and 
then  again  at  Augsburg.  His  most  recent  biographer  says  of  the 
earlier  Diet  :  "  The  depression  induced  in  him  by  the  Protest  of 
Spires  and  the  growth  of  Zwinglianism,  increased  still  more 
during  his  journey  home  and  the  first  days  after  his  return  ;  he 
felt  profoundly  downcast  and  looked  forward  to  the  future  with 
the  utmost  anxiety.  From  his  standpoint  he  certainly  had  good 
reason  for  his  fear."4  At  Augsburg  he  suffered  so  much  that 
Luther  wrote  to  him  :  "  You  torment  yourself  without  respite. 
...  It  is  not  theology,  however,  which  torments  you  but  your 
philosophy,  and  therefore  your  fears  are  groundless."5  And 
later  :  "I  have  been  through  greater  inward  torments  than  I 
trust  you  will  ever  experience,  and  such  as  I  would  not  wish  any 
man,  not  even  our  bitterest  opponents  there.  And  yet,  amidst 
such  troubles,  I  have  often  been  cheered  up  by  the  words  of  a 
brother,  for  instance,  Pomeranus,  yourself,  Jonas,  or  some  other. 
Hence,  why  not  listen  to  us,  who  speak  to  you,  not  according  to 
the  flesh  or  world,  but  undoubtedly  according  to  God  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  ?  "  But  you  prefer  to  lean  on  your  philosophy  ;  "  Led 
away  by  your  reason  you  act  according  to  your  own  foolishness 
and  are  killing  yourself  .  .  .  whereas  this  matter  is  really 
beyond  us  and  must  be  left  to  God."  Luther  felt  convinced  that 
his  "  prayer  for  Melanchthon  was  most  certainly  being  answered." 6 

The  hope  that  Melanchthon  would  get  the  better  of  his 
depression  after  the  momentous  Diet  was  over  was  only 
partially  realised. 

The  conviction  that  there  was  no  chance  of  reunion  with 

1  To  the  Saxon  minister  Carlowitz,  April  28,  1548,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  6, 
p.  879  seq. 

2  To  Justus  Jonas,  November  25,  1527,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  1,  p.  013  : 
"  quam  si  vivus  in  eiusmodi  miserias  incideret."      3  See  above,  p.  321. 

4  Ellinger,  ibid.,  p.  241.    5  On  June  13,  1530,  "  Briefwechsel,"  8,  p.  35. 
6-  On  June  30,  1530,    p.  50. 


368         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

the  existing  Church,  which  he  had  reached  at  Augsburg, 
pierced  him  to  the  depths  of  his  soul.  "  In  his  quality  of 
theologian,"  says  Kawerau,  "  the.  thought  of  the  Church's 
oneness  caused  him  to  endure  the  bitterest  agonies,  par- 
ticularly between  1530  and  1532  "  ;  if  certain  of  the 
Catholic  leaders  sought  to  draw  him  over  to  their  side, 
there  was  "  some  justification  for  their  attempts,"  to  be 
accounted  for  by  the  impression  he  had  given  at  Augsburg, 
viz.  of  not  being  quite  at  home  among  the  Evangelicals.1 
What  seemed  to  confirm  this  impression,  adds  Kawerau, 
was  "  that  Melanchthon  in  his  printed,  and  still  more  in  his 
epistolary  communications,  repeatedly  gave  occasion  to 
people  to  think  that  it  might  be  worth  while  approaching 
him  with  fresh  proposals  of  conciliation."2 

Of  the  psychological  struggle  hinted  at  by  Kawerau, 
through  which  he,  who,  after  Luther,  was  the  chief  promoter 
of  the  innovations,  had  to.  pass,  it  is  possible  to  gain  many  a 
glimpse  from  contemporary  documents. 

The  wrong  idea  which  he  came  more  and  more  to  cherish 
amounted  to  this  :  The  true  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church 
of  Christ,  as  against  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  of  the  day, 
is  that  to  be  found  "  in  the  Epistles  of  the  Apostles  and  in 
the  recognised  ecclesiastical  writers."3  Without  succeeding 
in  finding  any  position  of  real  safety,  he  insists  on  the 
necessity  of  sharing  the  "  consensus  of  the  Catholic  Church 
of  Christ  ':  and  of  belonging  to  the  true,  ancient  and 
"  sublime  '  ccetus  ecclesice  '  over  which  rules  the  Son  of  God."4 
Hence  comes  what  we  find  in  the  Wittenberg  certificates  of 
Ordination  which  he  drew  up,  in  which  the  "  doctrina 
caiholicce  ecclesice"  taken,  of  course,  in  the  above  uncertain 
and  wholly  subjective  sense,  is  declared  to  have  been 
accepted  by  the  "  ordinandi  "  and  to  be  the  best  testimony 
to  their  office.  In  this  conception  of  the  Church  "  we  find 
the  explanation  of  the  great  struggle  which  it  cost  him, 

1  "  Die  Versuche,"  p.  65.  2  Ibid.,  p.  .10. 

3  This  proposition  stands  at  the  head  of  the  1535  edition  of  the 
"  Loci"  He  had  intended  in  this  work,  so  he  says,  "  colligere  doctrinam 
catholicam  ecclesiae  Christi"  as  taught  by  those  witnesses.  "  Corp. 
ref.,"  21,  p.  333.  In  1540  he  declared  further  that  the  Churches 
accepting  the  Augsburg  Confession  held  fast  to  the  "  perpetuus  con- 
sensus vercB  ecclesice  omnium  temporum,"  as  to  that  of  the  Prophets 
and  Apostles  ;  Ambrose,  Augustine,  etc.,  agreed  with  them — if  only 
they  were  rightly  understood.     "  Corp.  ref.,"  11,  p.  494. 

4  Paolo  Vergerio,  January  13,  1541,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  4,  p.  22. 


MELANCHTHON  869 

when,  after  1530,  he  had  to  face  the  fact  that  the  schism 
was  real  and  definitive.  ...  In  his  conception,  the  true 
faith  was  thus  no  longer  the  new  Lutheran  understanding 
of  the  Gospel,  but  rather  the  ancient  creeds."1 

Cordatus  was  not  so  far  wrong  when  he  declared,  referring  to 
Melanchthon,  that  at  Wittenberg  there  were  men  "  learned  in 
languages  who  would  rather  read  and  listen  to  a  dead  Erasmus 
than  a  living  Luther."2 

Erasmus  himself  saw  in  Melanchthon's  exposition  of  Romans 
and  in  the  dedication  of  the  same  which  the  author  privately 
sent  him  on  October  25,  1532,  a  "  clear  corroboration  of  the 
suspicion  that  he  had  come  to  dislike  his  own  party  "  ("  se  suorum 
pigere  ").3  In  the  aforesaid  dedication  Melanchthon  had  com- 
plained, as  he  often  did,  of  the  religious  "  controversies  and 
quarrels  "  which  were  quite  repugnant  to  him  :  "As  neither  side 
cares  for  moderation,  both  have  refused  to  listen  to  us."  These 
and  such-like  admissions  "  caused  Erasmus  to  think  that  he  was 
desirous  of  forsaking  the  evangelical  camp."4  In  the  very  year 
of  Erasmus's  death  he  wrote  to  him  :  "I  cordially  agree  with 
you  on  most  of  the  questions  under  discussion."5  The  fondness 
of  the  Wittenbergers  for  the  crude  and  paradoxical,  so  he  adds, 
discreetly  veiling  his  meaning  in  Greek,  failed  entirely  to  appeal 
to  him  ;  he  was  anxious  to  find  "  better-sounding  "  formulae  in 
which  to  embody  doctrine,  but  here  he  was  faced  by  "  danger." 
He  had  reached  an  age  when  he  had  learnt  to  treat  questions  of 
faith  more  gingerly  than  of  yore.6  "Thus,  in  the  presence  of 
Erasmus,  he  here  repudiates  the  Melanchthon  of  the  early  years 
of  the  Reformation."7 

At  Wittenberg  there  was  then  a  rumour  that  Melanchthon 
intended  to  migrate  elsewhere,  because  he  no  longer  agreed  with 
Luther  and  his  set.8  That  such  was  actually  his  intention  has 
since  been  confirmed. 

1  Kawerau,  "  Versuche,"  p.  66  f. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  33.  Cordatus  to  Cruciger,  August  20,  1536,  "  Corp.  ret," 
3,  p.  159.  In  a  letter  to  the  latter  of  September  17,  1536,  he  bases  his 
blame  of  Melanchthon  on  his  praise  of  Luther  ("  Prceceptor  noster, 
qui  est  doctor  doctorum  theologice.  Amen.''''),  to  whose  doctrine  it 
was  necessary  to  hold  fast. 

3  "  Vita  Erasmi,"  ed.  Lugd.  Batav.,  1615,  p.  259.  Kawerau,  ibid., 
p.  17.  4  Kawerau,  ibid.,  p.  31. 

5  "  In  plerisque  controversiis  iudicandis  meant  opinionem  ad  tuam 
sententiam  libenter  adiungo.'"  Letter  of  May  12,  1536,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  3, 
p.  68  seq. 

6  His  theses  on  the  Primacy  and  his  other  polemical  statements 
(see  below,  xx.  4)  are  scarcely  "  better-sounding."  A  good  resolution 
here  made  runs  as  follows  :  "  Ad  has  materias  tractandas  afferam  ali- 
quanto  plus  euros  ac  studii  quam  antea."        7  Kawerau's  opinion,  p.  33. 

8  To  Camerarius,  November  30,  1536,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  3,  p.  193. 
After  mentioning  the  report  Melanchthon  adds  :  "Nihil  mihi  obicitur, 
nisi  quod  dieor  plusculum  laudare  bona  opera  " ;  all  the  truth  in  this 
was  that  "  quoedam  minus  horride  dico  quam  ipsi,"  i.e.  than  Luther 
and  his  more  enthusiastic  followers. . 

III.— 2   B 


370         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

Only  in  1900  was  a  letter  unearthed — written  by  Melanchthon 
in  this  critical  period  (1532),  to  Andreas  Cricius,  Catholic  bishop 
of  Plozk,  and  an  ardent  Humanist — in  which  he  deplores  in 
touching  language  the  "  unhappy  fate  "  which  had  embroiled 
him  in  the  religious  "  quarrels."1  In  the  beginning  he  had  taken 
part  in  the  movement  started  by  Luther  under  the  impression 
that  "  certain  points  connected  with  piety  would  be  emphasised, 
and  this  had,  all  along,  been  his  object  "  ;  his  efforts  had  ever 
been  to  "  moderate  "  and  to  "  put  an  end  to  controversy  "  ; 
he  also  exerted  himself  "  to  vindicate  the  importance  of  the 
Church's  constitution."2  He  expresses  his  readiness  to  accept 
a  post  of  professor  which  the  Bishop  might  see  fit  to  offer,  in  which 
he  might  find  a  refuge  from  the  storms  at  Wittenberg  :  "If  you 
will  point  out  to  me  a  haven  of  refuge  where  I  can  promote  and 
advance  the  learning  so  dear  to  us  both,  and  in  which  I  have 
acquired  some  little  proficiency,  then  I  will  submit  to  your 
authority."  In  the  same  letter,  however,  he  points  out  that  he 
could  never  approve  of  the  '^cruelty  of  the  opponents  "  of  the 
Protestant  cause,  nor  would  the  public  decision  to  be  expected 
fall  out  in  accordance  with  their  ideas  ;  yet  neither  did  he  agree 
with  those  who  wished  to  destroy  the  substance  of  the  Church. 
Cricius  appears  to  have  pointed  out  to  him,  in  a  letter  now  no 
longer  extant,  that,  before  he,  the  Bishop,  could  do  anything  it- 
would  be  necessary  for  Melanchthon  to  sever  his  connection  with 
the  Evangelicals.  This  he  could  not  bring  himself  to  do.  '  If 
you  have  a  more  feasible  proposal  to  make,  then  I  will  accept 
it  as  a  Divine  call."3 

1  With  the  expression  "  unhappy  fate "  we  may  compare  his 
lament  over  the  "  rixce  religionum,  in  quas  meo  quodam  fato  incidi  " 
(To  the  Imperial  Secretary  Obernburger,  June  23,  1532,  "  Corp.  ref.," 
2,  p.  602).  Kawerau  remarks  (p.  15)  :  "  It  is  indeed  sad  to  find  Luther's 
greatest  friend  speaking  of  his  having  been  involved  in  the  ecclesiastical 
struggles  of  his  time  as  a  misfortune." 

2  Ellinger,  ibid.,  p.  313  :  "  He  probably  made  use  here  of  an  inten- 
tionally ambiguous  phrase  in  order  to  curry  favour  with  the  Bishop,  for 
it  is  clear  that  he  never  meant  to  promote  a  restoration  of  the  hierarchi- 
cal order,  though  Cricius  may  well  have  supposed  this  from  his  letter. 
Hence  we  see  that  in  the  execution  of  his  plans,  Melanchthon  was  not 
above  having  recourse  to  craft." 

3  Letter  of  October  27,  1532.  For  its  publication  by  T.  Wierz- 
bowski  see  Kawerau,  p.  78,  n.  17.  Kawerau  rightly  emphasises  the 
fact  that,  according  to  the  text  of  the  letter,  Melanchthon  refuses 
to  break  with  Luther  merely  "  on  the  weak  ground  that  he,  as  a  right- 
minded  man  (vir  bonus),  could  not  make  up  his  mind  to  approve,  let 
alone  admire,  the  cruel  and  bloodthirsty  plans  of  the  Romanists.  .  .  . 
Should  the  '  moderata  consilia  '  prevail  amongst  the  Catholic  bishops, 
then  he  would  be  quite  willing  to  come  to  terms.  .  .  .  We  cannot  but 
see  how  gladly  he  would  have  taken  refuge  in  a  haven  where  he  would 
be  safe  from  the  theological  storm.  This  letter  shows  him  as  a  moder- 
ate, and,  at  the  same  time,  as  a  true  representative  of  Humanist 
interests."  For  the  further  efforts  of  Cricius,  who  wrote  in  1535,  that 
he  was  acting  on  behalf  of,  or  at  least  with  the  express  sanction  of, 
the  Pope  and  the  Cardinals,  see  Kawerau,  p.  18  ff.  Melanchthon's 
writing  of  August,  1532,  to  the  Elector-Cardinal  Albert  of  Mayence, 


MELANCHTHON  371 

Shortly  before  this,  on  January  31,  1532,  Melanchthon  had 
expressed  the  wish  to  Duke  Magnus  of  Mecklenburg,  on  the 
occasion  of  the  re-establishment  of  the  University  of  Rostock, 
that  a  "  quiet  spot  might  be  found  for  him,"  lamenting  that  his 
time  was  taken  up  in  matters  "  altogether  repugnant  to  my 
character  and  the  learned  labours  I  have  ever  loved."1 

Hence  there  is  no  doubt  that,  at  that  time,  utterly  sick  of  his 
work  at  Luther's  side,  he  was  perfectly  ready  to  change  his 
lodgings.  "  It  was  a  joyless  life  that  Melanchthon  led  at  Witten- 
berg. His  admiration  for  Luther  was  indeed  not  dead,  but 
mutual  trust  was  wanting."2 

In  1536  the  repressed  discontent  of  the  ultra-Lutherans  broke 
out  into  open  persecution  of  Melanchthon.  At  the  head  of  his 
assailants  was  Conrad  Cordatus,  who  had  sniffed  heresy  in  the 
stress  Melanchthon  laid  on  the  will  and  on  man's  co-operation  in 
the  work  of  Justification  ;  his  first  step  was  to  begin  a  contro- 
versy with  Cruciger,  Melanchthon's  friend.3  At  about  that  time, 
Luther,,  in  his  annoyance  with  Melanchthon,  declared  :  "  I  am 
willing  enough  to  admit  Master  Philip's  proficiency  in  the 
sciences  and  in  philosophy,  nothing  more  ;  but,  with  God's  help, 
I  shall  have  to  chop  off  the  head  of  philosophy,  for  so  it  must  be."4 
Nevertheless,  to  retain  the  indispensable  support  of  so  great  a 
scholar  and  to  preserve  peace  at  the  University,  Luther  pre- 
ferred to  seek  a  compromise,  on  the  occasion  of  a  solemn  Disputa- 
tion held  on  June  1,  1537.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  true,  he 
characterised  the  thesis  on  the  "  necessity  of  good  works  for 
salvation  "  as  reprehensible  and  misleading.5 

Further  difficulties  were  raised  in  1537  by  Pastor  Jacob 
Schenk,  who  would  have  it  that  Melanchthon  had  made  treason- 
able concessions  in  the  interests  of  the  Catholics  in  the  matter  of 
the  giving  of  the  chalice.  This  strained  still  further  his  relations 
with  Luther,  who  had  already  long  been  dimly  suspicious  of 
Melanchthon's  Zwinglian  leanings  concerning  the  Supper.  The 
Elector,  who  was  also  vexed,  consulted  Luther  privately  con- 
cerning Melanchthon  ;  Luther,  however,  again  expressed  his 
regard  for  him,  and  deprecated  his  "  being  driven  from  the 
University,"  adding,  nevertheless,  that,  should  he  seek  to  assert 
his  opinion  on  the  Supper,  then  "  God's  truth  would  have  to  be 
put  first."6 

The  intervention  of  the  Elector  in  this  case,  and,  generally,  the 
interference  of  the  great  Lords  in  ecclesiastical  affairs — which  fre- 

in  which,  in  the  most  respectful  terms,  he  begs  the  Primate  of  Germany, 
so  hated  by  Luther,  "  to  procure  a  milder  remedy  (cp.  '  moderata 
consilia  ')  for  the  dissensions  in  the  Churches,"  is  also  of  importance  ; 
all  right-minded  men  in  Europe  (boni  omnes)  were  looking  to  him. 
"  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  611  seq.  In  these  letters  we  see  his  earnest  efforts 
"  to  bring  about  peace  and  avert  civil  war,"  as  he  writes  to  Erasmus. 

1  On  January  31,  1532,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  567. 

2  Ellinger,  "  Melanchthon,"  p.  353. 

3  Cp.  K63tlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  445  seq. 

4  Kolde,  "  Anal.  Lutherana,"  p.  266. 

5  Ellinger,  ibid.,  p.  349.  •  Ibid.,  p.  351  f. 


372  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

quently  marred  his  plans  for  conciliation — embittered  him  more 
and  more  as  years  passed. 

He  was  perfectly  aware  that  the.  influential  patrons  of  the 
innovations  were  animated  by  mere  egoism,  avarice  and  lust 
for  power.  "  The  rulers  have  martyred  me  so  long,"  he  once 
declared,  "  that  I  have  no  wish  to  go  on  living  amid  such  suffer- 
ing."1 

Yet  Melanchthon's  own  inclination  was  more  and  more 
in  the  direction  of  leaving  ecclesiastical  affairs  to  the  secular 
authorities.  In  his  practice  he  abandoned  the  idea  of  an 
invisible  Church  even  more  completely  than  did  Luther. 
The  rigid  doctrinal  system  for  which  he  came  to  stand  in  the 
interests  of  the  pure  preaching  of  the  faith,  the  duty  which 
he  assigned  to  the  State  of  seeing  that  the  proclamation  of 
the  Gospel  conformed  to  the  standard  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  and  finally  the  countenance  he  gave  to  the 
persecution  of  sectarians  by  the  State,  and  to  State  regula- 
tion of  the  Church,  all  this  showed  that  he  was  anxious  to 
make  of  the  Church  a  mere  department  of  the  State.2  The 
Princes,  as  principal  members  of  the  Church,  must,  according 
to  him,  see  "  that  errors  are  removed  and  consciences 
comforted  "  ;  above  all  they  were  of  course  to  assist  in 
"  checking  the  encroachments  of  the  Popes."3      4  To  us  at 

1  Ellinger,  p.  414.  The  exclamation  was  called  forth  by  his  sad  ex- 
perience over  the  Naumburg  bishopric  (see  below,  p,  375,  and  vol. 
v.,  xxx.  4). 

2  This  tendency  is  also  manifest  in  Melanchthon's  many  labours 
for  the  promotion  of  education.  In  place  of  the  old,  independent 
Universities  of  the  Middle  Ages,  enjoying  ecclesiastical  freedom  and 
partaking  of  a  quasi-international  character,  there  sprang  up,  wherever 
Melanchthon's  influence  prevailed,  High  Schools  with  a  more  limited 
horizon  destined  to  supply  the  sovereign  of  the  land  with  servants  for 
the  State,  officials  and  preachers,  but,  above  all,  to  safeguard  the  true 
Evangel.  "  All  the  reformed  Universities  established  at  Melanchthon's 
instance,"  remarks  Carl  Sell,  a  Protestant  theologian,  "  Marburg, 
Tubingen,  Frankfort-on-the-Oder,  Leipzig,  Konigsberg,  Greifswald, 
Heidelberg,  Rostock,  Jena,  and  finally  Helmstadt,  were  State  Univer- 
sities, and,  like  Wittenberg,  intended  as  citadels  of  the  pure  faith. 
Hence  their  professors  were  all  bound  by  the  new  Confession.  .  .  . 
The  old,  unfettered  liberty  of  the  Church's  Universities  was  now  sub- 
ordinated to  the  ends  and  needs  of  the  State."  "  Philip  Melanchthon 
als  Lehrmeister  des  protest.  Deutschland,"  1897,  p.  19.  Ibid.,  p.  11, 
Sell  thus  characterises  the  State-Church  promoted  by  Melanchthon  and 
by  Luther  likewise  :  "  The  German  Reformation  never  succeeded  in 
producing  a  new  ecclesiasticism.  What  grew  up  beneath  its  sway  was 
rather  a  confessional  State,  which  declared  itself  at  one  with  that  form 
of  the  Christian  religion  which  the  head  of  the  State  regarded  as  right." 

3  "Corp.  ref.,"  3,  p.  281.  "Symbol.  Biicher,10"  p.  339  (in  the 
Articles  of  Schmalkalden,  "  Tractatus  de  potestate  papce  "). 


MELANCHTHON  373 

the  present  day  it  appears  strange — though  at  the  time  of 
the  Reformation  this  was  not  felt  at  all — that  Melanchthon, 
in  the  Article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  concerning 
priestly  marriage,  should  have  [in  the  c  Variata  ']  made  the 
appeal  to  the  Emperor  so  comprehensive  that  the  ecclesi- 
astical privileges  of  the  Princes  practically  became  an 
article  of  faith."1 

It  also  displeased  him  greatly  that  Luther  in  his  writings 
should  so  frequently  employ  vile  and  abusive  epithets  when 
speaking  of  great  persons.  He  was  loath  to  see  the  Catholic 
Princes  thus  vilified,  particularly  when,  as  in  the  case  of 
Albert,  Elector  of  Mayence,  he  had  hopes  of  their  assistance. 
On  June  16,  1538,  Luther  read  aloud  from  the  pulpit,  and 
afterwards  published  in  print,  a  statement  of  "  frightful 
violence  "  against  this  Prince,  moved  thereto,  as  it  would 
appear,  by  the  respectful  manner  in  which  the  Archbishop 
had  been  treated  by  Melanchthon.2  The  latter  made  no 
secret  of  his  entire  disapproval,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that 
others  at  Wittenberg  shared  his  opinion  of  this  document 
in  which  Luther  speaks  of  the  German  Prince  as  a  false  and 
perjured  man,  town-clerk  and  merd-bishop  of  Halle.3 

The  fact  is,  however,  that  it  was  in  many  instances 
,  Melanchthon's  own  pusillanimity  and  too  great  deference 
to  the  Protestant  Princes  which  caused  him  to  sanction 
things  which  afterwards  he  regretted.  For  instance,  we 
hear  him  complaining,  when  alluding  to  the  cruelty  of 
Henry  VIII.  of  England,  of  the  "  terrible  wounds  "  inflicted 
on  him  by  a  "tyrant."  The  "tyrant"  to  whom  he  here 
refers  was  the  bigamist,  Philip  of  Hesse.  Melanchthon  had 
been  too  compliant  in  the  case  of  both  these  sovereigns. 
When  Henry  VIII.,  who  had  fallen  out  with  his  spouse,  made 
overtures  to  the  Wittenbergers,  it  was  Melanchthon,  who, 
in  view  of  the  king's  desire  to  contract  a  fresh  marriage, 
suggested  he  might  take  a  second  wife.  Concerning  Philip 
of  Hesse's  bigamy  he  had  at  the  outset  had  scruples,  but 
he  set  them  aside  from  the  following  motive  which  he  him- 
self alleged  not  long  after  :  "  For  Philip  threatened  to 
apostatise  unless  we  should  assist  him."4     His  conscience 

1  Thus  Kolde  in  the  Introduction  to  his  edition  of  the  "  Symbol. 
Bucher  10  "  just  referred  to,  p.  xxv.,  n.  2,  adding  :  "A  preliminary  to 
this  is  possibly  to  be  found  in  '  Corp.  ref.,'  3,  p.  240  seq." 

2  Ellinger,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  354,  364. 

3  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  422.  *  Ellinger,  ibid.,  p.  377. 


374         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

had  reason  enough  to  complain  of  the  "  terrible  wounds  " 
inflicted  upon  it  by  this  tyrant,  but  for  this  Melanchthon 
himself  was  answerable.  He  even  assisted  personally  at  the 
marriage  of  the  second  wife,  though,  possibly,  his  presence 
was  secured  by  means  of  a  stratagem.  When  later,  he,  even 
more  than  his  friends,  was  troubled  with  remorse  concern- 
ing his  part  in  the  business — especially  when  the  Landgrave, 
wilfully  and  "  tyrannically,"  threatened  the  theologians 
with  the  publication  of  their  permission — he  fell  a  prey  to  a 
deadly  sickness,  due  primarily  to  the  depth  of  his  grief  and 
shame.  Luther  hastened  to  Weimar  where  he  lay  and, 
in  spite  of  his  own  depression,  by  the  brave  face  he  put  on, 
and  also  by  his  loving  care,  was  able  to  console  the  stricken 
man  so  that  he  ultimately  recovered.  "Martin,"  so  Mel- 
anchthon gratefully  declared,  "saved  me  from  the  jaws  of 
death."1 

By  Philip  of  Hesse,  Melanchthon  had  once  before  been 
taken  to  task  over  a  falsehood  of  his.  It  had  fallen  to 
Melanchthon  to  draw  up  a  memorandum,  dispatched  on 
September  1,  1538,  by  the  Elector  Johann  Frederick  and  the 
Landgrave  Philip,  conjointly,  to  King  Henry  VIII.  of 
England.  In  the  draft,  which  was  submitted  to  both 
Princes,  he  asserted,  contrary  to  the  real  state  of  the  case, 
that,  in  Germany,  there  were  no  Anabaptists  "  in  those 
districts  where  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  is  preached," 
though  they  were  to  be  found  "  where  this  doctrine  is  not 
preached  "  ;  this  he  wrote  though  he  himself  had  assisted 
Luther  previously  in  drawing  up  memoranda  for  localities 
in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Wittenberg,  directed  against 
the  Anabaptists  established  there  in  the  very  bosom  of  the 
new  Church.  The  Landgrave  refused  to  agree  to  such  a 
misrepresentation,  even  for  the  sake  of  predisposing  King 
Henry  for  Lutheranism.  He  candidly  informed  the  Elector 
that  he  did  not  agree  with  this  passage,  "  for  there  are 
Anabaptists  in  those  parts  of  Germany  where  the  pure 
Gospel  is  preached  just  as  much  as  in  those  where  it  is  not 
rightly  preached."  In  consequence  the  passage  in  question 
was  left  out,  merely  a  general  reference  to  the  existence  of 
Anabaptists  in  Germany  being  allowed  to  remain.2 

1  On  this  "  miracle,"  see  above,  p.  162. 

2  "  Corp.  ref.,"  3,  p.  578  seq.  "  Zeitschr.  fur  die  hist.  Theol.,"  28, 
1858,  606  f.  On  Melanchthon's  insincerity  cp.  also  O.  Ritschl,  "  Dog- 
mengesch.,"  1,  1908,  p.  232. 


MELANCHTHON  375 

The  following  example  likewise  shows  how  Melanchthon's 
want  of  uprightness  and  firmness  contributed  to  raise 
difficulties  and  unpleasantness  with  those  in  power.  Johann 
Frederick  of  Saxony  seized  upon  the  bishopric  of  Naumburg- 
Zeitz,  and,  in  spite  of  the  Emperor's  warning,  caused 
Amsdorf  to  be  "  consecrated  "  its  bishop.  The  Witten- 
bergers,  including  Melanchthon,  had  given  their  sanction 
to  this  step.  Afterwards,  however,  the  latter  was  over- 
whelmed with  scruples.  "  Tyranny  has  increased  more  and 
more  at  the  Courts,"  exclaimed  Melanchthon. — "  There  is 
no  doubt  that  his  sense  of  responsibility  in  a  proceeding, 
which  he  had  been  driven  to  sanction  against  his  better 
judgment,  depressed  him."  He  trembled  at  the  thought 
that  "the  matter  might  well  lead  to  warlike  entanglements, 
and  that  the  Emperor  would  resent  as  an  insult  and  never 
forget  this  violent  seizure  of  the  highest  spiritual  princi- 
palities."1 

Here  we  shall  only  hint  at  Melanchthon's  attitude — again 
characterised  by  weakness  and  indecision — at  the  time 
of  the  Interim  controversy.  He  himself,  from  motives  of 
policy  and  out  of  consideration  for  the  interests  of  the  Court, 
had  lent  a  hand  in  the  bringing  about  of  the  Leipzig  Interim. 
The  "  real  "  Lutherans  ("  Gnesio-Lutherans  ")  saw  in  this 
an  alliance  with  the  Popish  abomination.  The  "  temporis- 
ing policy  of  the  Interim  "  in  which  he  "  became  entangled," 
remarks  Carl  Sell,  "  called  forth  the  righteous  anger  of  all 
honest  German  Protestants."  "  Melanchthon  saved  his 
life's  work  only  at  the  cost  of  the  agony  of  the  last  thirteen 
years  of  his  life  ...  a  real  martyr — albeit  a  tragically 
guilty  one — to  a  cause."2  "  The  whole  struggle  of  '  Gnesio- 
Lutheranism '  with  '  Philippism  '  consisted  in  employing 
against  Melanchthon  the  very  weapon  of  which  Melanchthon 
himself  had  made  use,"  viz.  the  "confusion  of  theological 
opinions  with  the  Divine  data  which  these  opinions  pur- 
ported to  represent."3 

A  redeeming  feature  in  the  life  of  this  unhappy  man, 
upon  which  one  is  glad  to  dwell  after  what  has  gone  before, 
was  his  strong  sense  of  right  and  wrong.  In  spite  of  all  his 
weakness,  his  conscience  was  highly  sensitive.  Thus  he 
himself  supplies  in  many  cases  the  moral  appreciation  of 

1  Ellinger,  loc.  cit.,  p.  411.  2  Ibid.,  p.  26.         3  Ibid.,  p.  16. 


376         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

his  actions  in  his  outspoken  statements  and  frank  con- 
fessions to  some  trusted  friend,  for  whom  his  words  were 
also  intended  to  serve  as  a  guide. 

To  his  friends  he  was  in  the  habit  of  giving  advice  on 
their  behaviour,  couching  such  advice  in  the  language  of  the 
scholar.  Nor  was  he  jesting  when  he  declared  that  such 
good  counsel  was  intended  in  the  first  instance  for  himself  ; 
in  practice,  however,  the  deed  fell  short  of  the  will.  So 
excellent  was  his  theory  that  many  of  his  aphorisms,  in  their 
short,  classical  form,  became  permanent  principles  of 
morality.  Their  influence  was  on  a  par  with  that  of  his 
pedagogical  writings,  which  long  held  sway  in  the  history 
of  education. 

His  friends  could  count  not  only  on  the  ethical  guidance 
of  the  philosopher  and  Humanist,  but  even  on  his  ready 
assistance  in  matters  of  all  sorts.  It  was  not  in  his  nature 
to  refuse  his  sympathy  to  anyone,  and,  to  the  students,  who 
gladly  sought  his  assistance,  he  was  unable  to  say  no. 

Another  valuable  quality  was  that  talent  for  making 
peace,  of  which  he  repeatedly  made  use  in  the  interests  of 
his  co-religionists.  His  conversation  and  bearing  were 
exceedingly  courteous.  Erasmus,  for  instance,  speaks  of  his 
"  irresistible  charm  "  ("  gratia  quasdam  fatalis  ").  In  a  letter 
of  1531  Erasmus  says  :  "  In  addition  to  his  excellent 
education  and  rare  eloquence,  he  possesses  an  irresistible 
charm,  due  more  to  ''genius''  than  to  '  ingenium.'  For 
this  reason  he  stands  in  high  esteem  with  noble  minds,  and, 
even  amongst  his  enemies,  there  is  not  one  who  cordially 
hates  him."1  At  the  time  of  the  Interim  controversy  the 
agents  of  the  Duke  of  Saxony  were  desirous  that  the 
Catholic  party  should  find  men  of  real  moderation  and 
culture  to  negotiate  with  Melanchthon  and  the  other  leaders 
of  the  new  faith.  They  were  particularly  anxious  that 
Claudius  Jaius,  the  Jesuit,  should  repair  to  Saxony  for  this 
purpose.  Peter  Canisius,  apprised  of  this,  wrote,  on  April  30, 
1551,  to  Ignatius  his  superior,  that  these  people  were  sure 
from  experience  that  Jaius,  with  the  modesty  he  owed  to  his 
culture,  would  do  more  good  than  the  most  violent  con- 
troversies.2 

1  To  Julius  Pflug,  August  20, 1531,  "  Erasmi  0pp."  ed.  Lugd.,  3,  col. 
1412.    Kawerau,  "  Versuche,"  p.  31. 

2  "  B.  Petri  Canisii  Epistulce,"  etc.,  ed.  O.  Braunsberger,  1,  p.  359 
8eq. 


MELANCHTHON  377 

Before  the  world  Melanchthon  was  careful  to  hide  the 
growing  dissension  between  himself  and  Luther. 

Thus,  writing  on  June  22,  1537,  to  Veit  Dietrich,  he 
says,  alluding  to  the  quarrel  commenced  by  Cordatus,  that 
he  was  working  for  peace  at  Wittenberg  University.  "  Nor 
does  Luther  appear  to  be  badly  disposed  towards  us  "  ; 
"  no  hatred  exists,  and  should  there  be  any  it  will  presently 
break  out  "  ;  for  his  own  part  he  intends  to  be  patient, 
"  even  should  it  come  to  blows  ['  plaga  'J."1 

Even  Luther's  outbursts  of  anger  were  explained  away 
by  his  more  supple  comrade,  who  exhorts  his  friends  to 
possess  their  souls  in  patience  and  to  conceal  such  faults 
from  the  eyes  of  the  world.  The  "  dreadful  man,"  he  writes 
to  Bucer — applying  to  Luther  the  Homeric  title  Sewos — 
"  often  gets  these  boisterous  fits.  More  is  gained  by  ignoring 
them  than  by  open  contradiction.  Let  us  therefore  make 
use  of  the  philosophy  in  which  we  both  have  been  initiated, 
cover  our  wounds,  and  exhort  others  too  to  do  the  same." 
Luther,  owing  to  his  combativeness,  was  not  to  be  depended 
on,  and  the  sad  part  of  it  is  that  "  our  little  Churches  are 
tossed  about  with  neither  sail  nor  sober  pilot  "  ;  for  his  part 
he  feared  victory  as  much  as  war  ;  he  was  opposed  to  war 
in  the  cause  of  the  Evangel  because  in  the  confusion  the 
Court  officials  and  the  great  ones  of  the  Protestant  party, 
the  "Centaurs,"  would  assuredly  stretch  out  greedy  hands 
to  grasp  the  rights  and  possessions  of  the  Church.2 

Melanchthon  was  at  that  time  in  a  certain  sense  the 
"  one  who,  thanks  to  his  moderation,  kept  everything 
together  at  Wittenberg.  This  is  expressly  stated  by 
Cruciger."3     For  this  his  endless  patience,  what  he  himself 

1  "  Corp.  ref.,"  3,  p.  383  :  "  Equidem  studeo  omni  officio  tueri 
concordiam  nostras  academics,  et  scis  me  eiiam  hoc  genere  artis  aliquid 
adhibere  solere,"  etc.  It  is  possible  that  the  above  reference  to  a 
"  plaga,"  or  some  other  similar  passage,  gave  rise  to  the  singular  mis- 
apprehension of  certain  polemics,  viz.  that  Luther  had  been  in  the 
habit  of  coercing  Melanchthon  by  striking  him  and  boxing  his  ears, 
surely  one  of  the  most  curious,  and  at  the  same  time  baseless,  of  all 
the  legends  concerning  Luther. 

2  On  November  4,  1543,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  5,  p.  218. 

3  Ellinger,  loc.  cit.,  p.  433.  Cp.  Melanchthon  to  Johann  Sturm, 
August  28,  1535,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  2,  p.  917  :  The  Court  had  prevailed  on 
him  not  to  leave  Wittenberg,  chiefly  because  it  regarded  his  presence  as 
indispensable  owing  to  his  power  for  mediating  :  "  me  putant  ali- 
quarito  minus  vehement  em  aut  pertinacem  esse  quam  sunt  alii.''''  He 
regrets,  with  a  hint  at  the   Luther-enthusiasts,  the  "  democratia  aut 


378         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

terms  his  "  servile  spirit,"1  was  to  some  extent  accountable. 
Yet  his  Humanism,  and  the  equanimity,  calmness  and  moder- 
ation he  owed  to  it,  doubtless  served  the  peacemaker  in 
good  stead.  To  all,  whether  of  his  own  party  or  of  the 
opposite,  he  was  wont  to  declare  his  abhorrence  of  the 
"  democratia  aut  tyrannis  indoctorum."2  Owing  to  such 
personal  qualities  of  Melanchthon's,  Cochlaeus  himself,  in  a 
letter  to  his  friend  Dantiscus,  in  which  he  attacks  Melanch- 
thon,  admits  that  he  was  "  nevertheless  at  heart  very  fond 
of  him."3 

tyrannis  indoctorum "  prevalent  in  both  Catholic  and  Lutheran 
camps.  ..."  Non  dissimulo  evectos  etiam  esse  nostros  interdum  vwkp 
r<x  iijKafiixiva,  et  multa  mitigavi." 

1  "  Fortassis  natura  sum  ingenio  servili,"  he  says  in  the  letter  to 
Carlowitz  of  April  28,  1548,  "  Corp.  ref.,"  6,  p.  879. 

2  See  n.  3  of  last  page. 

3  Hipler,  "  Beitrage  zur  Gesch.  des  Humanismus,"  p.  45.    Kawerau, 
"  Versuche^  p.  31. 


CHAPTER    XIX 

luther's   relations   with   zwingli,  carlstadt,    bugen- 
hagen  and  others 

1.   Zwingli  and  the  Controversy  on  the  Supper 

From  the  time  that  Zwingli,  in  1519,  commenced  working 
on  his  own  lines  at  Zurich  in  the  cause  of  the  religious 
innovations,  he  had  borrowed  more  and  more  largely  from 
Luther's  writings.  Whilst  acknowledging  Luther's  great 
achievements  he  did  not,  however,  sacrifice  his  independence. 
Writing  in  1523  with  a  strong  sense  of  what  he  himself  had 
done  and  of  the  success  which  had  attended  his  own  efforts, 
he  said  :  "I  began  to  preach  before  ever  I  had  heard  of 
Luther.  ...  I  was  not  instructed  by  Luther,  for,  until  two 
years  ago,  his  very  name  was  unknown  to  me,  and  I  worked 
on  the  Bible  Word  alone.  .  .  .  Nor  do  I  intend  to  be 
called  after  Luther,  seeing  that  I  have  read  but  little  of  his 
doctrine.  What  I  have  read  of  his  writings,  however,  is 
as  a  rule  so  excellently  grounded  on  the  Word  of  God,  that 
no  creature  can  overthrow  it.  ...  I  did  not  learn  the 
teaching  of  Christ  from  Luther,  but  from  the  Word  of  God. 
If  Luther  preaches  Christ,  he  is  doing  the  same  as  I,  though, 
praise  be  to  God,  countless  more  souls  have  been  led  to  God 
by  him  than  by  me."1 

Little  attention  was  paid  at  Wittenberg  to  the  religious 
occurrences  at  Zurich,  though  they  had  been  welcomed  by 
Luther.  Only  when  Zwingli  sided  with  Carlstadt  against 
Luther  in  the  controversy  on  the  Supper  did  the  latter 
begin  to  give  him  more  heed  ;  this  he  at  once  did  in  his 
own  fashion.  He  asserted,  as  he  had  already  done  in  the 
case  of  Carlstadt,  CEcolampadius  and  others,  that  Zwingli 
would  not  have  known  the  truth  concerning  Christ  and  the 
Evangel  "  had  not  Luther  first  written  on  the  subject  "  ;  of 
his  own  initiative  he  would  never  have  dared  to  come  to 

1  Explanation  of  Article  xviii.,  "  Werke,"  2,  1908,  p.  147. 

379 


380         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

freedom  and  the  light  ;  later  he  spoke  of  him  as  "  a  child 
of  his  loins  "  who  had  betrayed  him.1 

In  1526  the  divergency  of  opinion  between  Luther  and 
Zwingli  on  the  subject  of  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ  in  the 
Blessed  Sacrament,  already  present  as  early  as  1524, 
became  much  more  apparent.2 

Luther,  in  1526,  in  his  "  Sermon  von  dem  Sacrament," 
and,  in  1527,  in  his  work  on  the  words  "  This  is  My  Body," 
had,  conformably  with  his  theory,  urged  that  Christ  is 
present  with  the  bread,  and  spoken  not  at  all  kindly  of  his 
Swiss  gainsay ers,  the  Zwinglians.3  Zwingli,  on  his  side, 
soon  after  the  appearance  of  the  last  work,  attacked  Luther's 
view  in  a  writing  entitled  "Arnica  exegesis  "  (1528)  ;  this, 
his  first  open  assault  on  the  Wittenberg  doctor,  he  followed 
up  with  a  German  pamphlet  on  the  words  of  Christ  :  "  This 
is  My  Body."  In  these  we  have  the  protest  of  the  sceptical 
rationalism  of  Zurich,  against  Luther's  half-hearted  doctrine 
on  the  Sacrament. 

Zwingli  demanded  that  the  words  of  institution  should  be 
taken  figuratively  and  the  Eucharist  regarded  as  a  mere 
symbol  of  the  Body  of  Christ.  This  he  did  with  no  less 
assurance  than  Luther  had  urged  his  own  pet  view,  viz. 
that  Christ  is  present  together  with  the  bread  (Impanation 
instead  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation). 
Zwingli  complained  bitterly  of  the  rude  tone  adopted  by 
Luther  ;  according  to  him  God's  Word  must  prevail,  not 
Luther's  abusive  epithets,  "  fanatic,  devil,  rogue,  heretic, 
Trotz,  Plotz,  Blitz  and  Donner,  and  so  on."  Over  and  over 
again  he  roundly  accuses  Luther  of  "  lying  "  and  "  false- 
hood," though  his  language  is  not  so  lurid  as  his  adversary's. 
The  artifices  by  which  he  sought  to  evade  the  plain  sense 
of  the  words  "  This  is  My  Body,"  were  well  calculated  to 
call  forth  a  rude  contradiction  from  Luther.  Zwingli's 
arbitrary  recourse  to  the  "  figurative,  symbolical,  meta- 
phorical "  sense,  Luther  answered  by  appealing  to  the  inter- 
pretation accepted  by  the  whole  of  antiquity.  At  the  turn 
of  the  fourth  and  the  fifth  centuries  Macarius  Magnes  had 
written  :    "  Christ  has  said  '  This  is  My  Body  '  ;    it  is  no 


1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  23,  p.  34  f. ;  Erl.  ed.,  30,  p.  11.    Cp.  "  Brief  - 
wechsel,"  5,  p.  310.    Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  63. 

2  See  below,  p.  409. 

3  "  Das   diese   Wort   Christi    (Das   ist   mein   Leib   etce)   noch    fest 
stehen  widder  die  Schwermgeister,"  1527,  "  Werke,"  ibid.,  38  ff.  =  14  ff. 


ZWINGLI  381 

figure  of  the  Body  of  Christ,  nor  a  figure  of  His  flesh,  as  some 
have  been  foolish  enough  to  assert,  but  in  truth  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ."1  Concerning  the  promise  of  the 
Eucharist,  Hilary  of  Poitiers  declared  in  the  fourth  century  : 
"  Christ  says  :  i  My  flesh  is  meat  indeed  '  (John  vi.  56)  ; 
as  to  the  truth  of  the  flesh  and  blood  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
The  Lord  Himself  teaches  it  and  our  faith  confesses  it,  viz. 
that  it  is  truly  flesh  and  truly  blood."  Any  other  inter- 
pretation of  the  words  of  Christ  he  calls  "  violenta  atque 
imprudens  prcedicatio,  aliena  atque  impia  intelligentiay2 
The  reproach,  which  at  a  much  earlier  period  Ignatius  of 
Antioch,  a  disciple  of  the  Apostles,  had  brought  forward 
against  the  Doceta)  of  his  day,  Luther  might  well  have 
applied  to  the  Zwinglians  :  "  They  refuse  to  confess  that 
the  Eucharist  is  the  flesh  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  that 
flesh  which  suffered  for  our  sins  and  which  the  Father  raised 
from  the  dead."3 

We  can  understand  the  abhorrence  which  Luther  con- 
veyed by  the  term  Sacramentarians  ("  sacramentarii  "),  by 
which  he  characterised  all  those — whether  Swiss,  Reformed, 
or  followers  of  Carlstadt — who  denied  the  Real  Presence  in 
the  Sacrament. 

The  Marburg  Conference  of  1529,  at  which  both  Zwingli 
and  Luther  attended  with  their  friends,  did  not  bring  any 
real  settlement,  for  no  compromise  on  the  question  of  the 
Eucharist  was  feasible.  Fourteen  of  the  other  Articles 
submitted  by  Luther  were  accepted,  but  the  15th,  with  this 
principal  question,  remained  in  suspense  owing  to  the 
opposition  of  the  Swiss.  In  consequence  of  this  Lutjier 
refused  to  recognise  Zwingli  and  his  followers  as  brothers, 
in  spite  of  all  the  prayers  of  his  opponents.  He  would  not 
concede  to  them  Christian  brotherhood  but  merely  "  Chris- 
tian charity,"  that  charity,  moreover,  which,  as  he  declared, 
we  owe  even  to  our  enemies.  He  again  voiced  it  as  his 
opinion,  that,  "  your  spirit  is  different  from  ours,"  which 
greatly  incensed  the  other  side.  A  statement  was  appended 
to  the  Fifteen  Articles  of  Marburg,  to  the  effect,  that,  on 
account  of  the  Supper,  they  had  "  so  far  failed  to  reach  an 

1  Fragment  in  Migne's  "  P.L.,"  5,  col.  348  seq. 

2  "  De  Trinitate,"  18,  c.  14.    "  P.L.,"  10,  col.  247. 

3  "  Ep.  ad  Smyrnacs,"  7.  Migne,  "  P.G.,"  5,  col.  714.  Instead 
of  the  passages  here  quoted,  certain  others  were  preferred  in  that  con- 
troversy. 


382         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

understanding,  but  that  each  side  would  exercise  Christian 
charity  towards  the  other  so  far  as  every  man's  conscience 
allowed." 

Once,  during  the  proceedings,  Luther,  to  show  his  attach- 
ment to  the  literal  sense  of  the  words  "  This  is  My  Body," 
chalked  these  words  on  the  tablecloth  and  held  it  up  in  front 
of  him,  pointing  significantly  to  the  writing. 

Luther,  however,  overlooked  the  fact,  that,  if  once  the 
words  were  taken  in  their  literal  sense,  as  he  was  perfectly 
right  in  doing,  there  was  no  alternative  but  to  accept  the 
Catholic  interpretation,  according  to  which  the  bread  is 
actually  and  substantially  changed  into  the  Body  of  Christ, 
and  that  to  say  :  "  This  is  bread  though  Christ  is  present," 
was  really  out  of  the  question.  Many  theologians  who 
follow  Luther  in  other  matters,  unhesitatingly  admit  his  in- 
consequence.1 

At  the  solemn  meeting  at  Marburg,  Luther  was  not  to  be 
disconcerted,  not  even  when  Zwingli  argued  that  the  words 
of  promise  of  the  Sacrament  in  St.  John's  Gospel  (vi.  32  ff., 
48  ff.),  where  we  read  :  "  My  flesh  is  meat  indeed,"  must 
mean  "  my  flesh  signifies  meat."  When  Luther,  no  less 
erroneously,  objected  that  the  passage  in  question  did  not 
apply  there,  Zwingli  exclaimed  :  "  Of  course  not,  Doctor, 
for  that  passage  is  the  breaking  of  your  neck."  Luther 
replied  testily  :  "  Don't  be  so  sure  of  it ;  necks  don't  break 
so  easily  ;  here  you  are  in  Hesse,  not  in  Switzerland  !  " 
Zwingli  was  constrained  to  protest  that,  even  in  Switzerland, 
people  enjoyed  the  protection  of  the  law,  and  to  explain  that 
what  he  had  said  had  not  been  meant  by  way  of  any  threat. 

1  We  are  confronted  with  the  following  dilemma  :  "  Either  the  strict 
literal  sense  or  the  purely  figurative  ;  either  the  Catholic  sense  or  the 
Reformed."  Thus  J.  J.  Herzog,  "  RE.  f.  prot.  Theol.  u.  K.,"  I2,  p.  39. 
Previously  he  had  declared  :  "Asa  matter  of  fact  the  literal  interpreta- 
tion involves  the  whole  Catholic  theory  [of  Transubstantiation]  and 
practice  concerning  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  not  only  the  change 
in  the  elements,  the  adoration  of  the  Host,  and  the  withholding  of  the 
Chalice  [?],  but  also  the  sacrificial  character  of  the'Mass." — The  com- 
plete change  of  substance  and  the  presence  of  Christ  without  any 
remaining  of  the  bread,  as  is  well  known,  is  vouched  for  by  the  oldest 
liturgies.  It  is  supported  by  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  who  compare 
the  change  here  with  that  of  the  water  made  into  wine  at  Cana  and  by 
reference  to  the  marvels  of  the  Creation  and  of  the  Incarnation. 
Moreover,  in  1543,  Luther  did  not  regard  a  belief  in  Transubstantiation 
as  any  obstacle  to  joining  his  party  ("  nihil  morati  si  quis  earn  alibi  credat 
vel  non  ").  To  the  Evangelicals  at  Venice,  June  13,  1543,  "  Brief e,"  ed. 
De  Wette,  5,  p.  568. 


ZWINGLI  383 

Behind  the  efforts  to  unite  Wittenberg  and  Zurich  there 
was  a  different  influence  at  work.  Philip,  Landgrave  of 
Hesse,  like  Zwingli,  was  anxious  to  establish  a  league  of 
all  the  Swiss  and  German  Protestants  against  those  who,  in 
the  Empire,  defended  Catholicism.  This  proposal  Luther 
resisted  with  all  his  might,  urging  the  Landgrave  not  to 
make  common  cause  with  the  false  teachers,  to  the  delight 
of  the  devil.  Melanchthon,  who  also  was  present,  was 
likewise  pleased  to  see  the  Landgrave's  plan  frustrated,  for 
it  would  have  rendered  impossible  any  reconciliation  with 
the  Emperor  and  the  larger  portion  of  the  Empire,  which 
was  the  vague  ideal  after  which  he  was  striving.  The  parties, 
however,  were  too  distrustful  of  each  other  to  arrive  at  any 
settlement.  Jonas,  for  his  diplomacy,  called  Bucer  a  "  fox," 
and  said  of  Zwingli,  that  he  detected  in  him  a  certain 
arrogance  such  as  was  to  be  expected  in  a  boor. 

At  the  time  of  the  Marburg  Conference,  Vienna  was  being 
besieged  by  the  Turks.  Thus,  whilst  the  Empire  stood  in 
the  greatest  peril  from  foes  without,  an  attempt  was  being 
made  within  to  reach  a  settlement  which  might  drive  the 
wedge  yet  deeper  into  the  unity  of  the  Fatherland.  The  latter 
attempt  ended,  however,  in  failure,  whilst  the  siege  of 
Vienna  was  raised  and  the  departure  of  the  Turks  brought 
about  a  certain  strengthening  of  the  Empire. 

The  tension  between  the  Zwinglians  and  the  Lutherans 
was  not  lessened  when  each  party  claimed  that  it  had 
gained  the  upper  hand  and  utterly  routed  the  other  at 
Marburg. 

On  October  11,  1531,  Zwingli  fell  in  the  battle  of  Cappel, 
in  which,  mounted  on  horseback  and  fully  armed,  he  was 
leading  the  men  of  Zurich  against  the  five  Catholic  cantons. 
What  Luther  thought  and  felt  at  that  time  we  learn  both 
from  Schlaginhaufen's  Notes  of  his  Table-Talk  in  1531  and 
1532,  which  afford  some  fresh  information,  and  from 
Luther's  letters  and  printed  works. 

The  very  first  Note  we  have  of  Schlaginhaufen's  touches 
upon  Zwingli's  untimely  end.  It  would  appear  that  a 
rumour  had  got  abroad  that  Luther's  other  opponents, 
Carlstadt  and  Pellicanus,  had  also  been  slain. 

Luther  was  in  high  glee  when  news  of  Zwingli's  death 
reached  him. 


384         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

He  said  :  "  God  knows  the  thoughts  of  the  heart.  It  is  well  that 
Zwingli,  Carlstadt,  and  Pellicanus  lie  dead  on  the  battle-field,  for 
otherwise  we  could  not  have  retained  the  Landgrave,  Strasburg 
and  other  of  our  neighbours  [true  to  our  doctrine].  Oh,  what  a 
triumph  is  this,  that  they  have  perished  !  God  indeed  knows 
His  business  well."1 — "Zwingli  died  like  a  brigand,"  he  said 
later,  when  scarcely  a  year  had  elapsed  since  his  death.  "  He 
wished  to  force  others  to  accept  his  errors,  went  to  war,  and  was 
slain."  "  He  drew  the  sword,  therefore  he  has  received  his 
reward,  for  Christ  says  :  '  All  who  take  the  sword  shall  perish  by 
the  sword.'  If  God  has  saved  him,  then  He  did  so  contrary 
to  His  ordinary  ways."2 — "All  seek  to  cloak  their  deceitful 
doctrines  with  the  name  of  the  Evangel,"  so  he  exclaims  in  1532. 
From  Augsburg  he  heard  that  the  Sacramentarian  (i.e.  Zwinglian) 
preachers  were  using  his  name  and  Melanchthon's.  "  Since  they 
refused  to  be  our  friends  in  God's  name,  let  them  be  so  in  the 
devil's,  even  as  Judas  was  the  friend  of  Christ."3 

Because  Thomas  Miinzer  was  no  friend  of  the  Evangel  he  was, 
according  to  Luther,  destined  to  perish  miserably  and  shame- 
fully. Zwingli  he  placed  on  exactly  the  same  footing  ;  his  death 
likewise  was  a  just  judgment.4  Zwingli,  so  he  will  have  it,  was  a 
complete  unbeliever.  In  his  newly  published  sermons  of  1530  he 
had  shown  that  Zwingli,  like  Carlstadt,  by  his  attacks  on  the 
Supper,  had  denied  all  the  articles  of  the  faith.  "  If  a  man  falls 
away  from  one  article  of  faith,  however  insignificant  it  may 
appear  to  reason,  he  has  fallen  away  from  all  and  does  not  hold 
any  of  them  aright.  For  instance,  it  is  certain  that  our  fanatics 
who  now  deny  the  Sacrament,  also  deny  Christ's  Divinity  and 
all  the  other  articles  of  faith,  however  much  they  protest  to  the 
contrary,  and  the  reason  of  this  is,  that,  when  even  one  link  of 
the  chain  is  broken,  the  whole  chain  is  in  pieces."5 

H.  Barge,  a  Protestant,  remarks  :  "  After  the  battle  of  Cappel, 
Luther  appears  to  have  devoted  his  unusual  gifts  of  eloquence  to 
slandering  Zwingli  and  all  who  remained  true  to  him,  syste- 
matically, deliberately,  and  maliciously,  as  mere  heretics."6 

The  following  delineation  of  Zwingli  by  Luther  dates  from 
1538  :  "  Zwingli  was  a  very  clever  and  upright  man,  but  he  fell 
[into  error]  ;  then  he  became  so  presumptuous  as  to  dare  to  say 
and  write  :  '  I  hold  that  no  one  in  the  world  ever  believed  that 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are  present  in  the  Sacrament.'  " 
Luther  adds  :  Because  Zwingli  ventured  to  speak  rashly  against 
him  [Luther]  and  "  against  what  is  plain  to  the  whole  world,  he 
perished  miserably,  just  as  did  Egranus,  that  importunate 
fellow."7 

Just   as   he   had   condemned   Carlstadt   and   Pellicanus,   and, 

1  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  1. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  130.  3  Ibid.,  p.  108. 

4  "  Briefwechsel,"  9,  p.  139. 

5  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  32,  p.  59. 

6  "  Andreas  Bodenstein  von  Karlstadt,"  2,  p.  445. 

7  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  136. 


CARLSTADT  385 

lastly,  Egranus  (Johann  Silvius  Egranus  of  Zwickau),  so  also 
elsewhere  he  lumps  together  in  one  condemnation  with  Zwingli 
all  those  doctors  who  differed  from  him.  Relentlessly  he  scourges 
them  as  he  had  scourged  the  Catholics.  "  The  character  of  those 
who  oppose  the  Word  is  fiendish  rather  than  human.  Man  does 
what  he  can,  but  when  the  devil  takes  possession  of  him  then 
'  enmity  arises  between  him  and  the  woman  '  "  (Gen.  hi.  15). 1 

Few  experienced  his  intolerance  to  such  an  extent  as  Andreas 
Bodenstein  von  Carlstadt,  his  quondam  colleague  in  the  theo- 
logical faculty  of  Wittenberg. 

2.    Carlstadt 

Carlstadt,  the  fanatic,  failed  to  obtain  any  peace  from 
Luther  until  he  passed  over  to  the  camp  of  the  Swiss 
theologians.  In  1534  he  became  preacher  at  St.  Peter's  in 
Basle,  and  professor  of  theology.  We  may  here  cast  a 
glance  at  the  troubles  brought  on  him,  partly  through 
Luther,  partly  through  his  own  passionate  exaltation,  both 
previous  to  this  date  and  until  his  death  at  Basle,  where  he 
was  carried  off  by  the  plague  in  1541. 

Carlstadt's  violent  doings  at  Wittenberg  and  the  icono- 
clasm  which  he  justified  by  the  Mosaic  prohibition  of 
graven  images,  had  miscarried  owing  to  Luther's  warnings.2 
Soon  it  became  clear  that  there  was  no  longer  any  room  for 
him  at  the  University  town  near  the  leader  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, more  particularly  since,  in  1522,  he  had  seen  fit  to 
deny  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament.  Luther 
loudly  bewailed  Carlstadt's  sudden  determination  to  become 
a  new  teacher,  and  to  lay  new  injunctions  on  the  people  to 
the  detriment  of  his  (Luther's)  authority.3 

Carlstadt  now  migrated  to  Orlamunde  in  the  Saxon 
Electorate,  where  the  magistrates  appointed  him  pastor. 
In  August,  1524,  however,  Luther  passed  through  Weimar, 
Jena,  and  the  other  districts  where  the  fanatics  had  gained 
a  footing,  preaching  energetically  against  them.  Carlstadt 
he  had  met  at  Jena  on  August  22,  1523,  in  the  Black  Bear 
Inn.  In  vain  did  they  seek  a  friendly  settlement,  for  each 
overwhelmed  the  other  with  reproaches.  Finally,  in  the 
taproom  of  the  inn,  Luther  handed  his  opponent  a  gold- 

1  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  56. 

2  See  vol.  ii.,  p.  97  ff. 

3  To  Prior  Caspar  Giittel,  March  30,  1522,  "  Brief wechsel,"  3,  p. 
326.  Cp.  Karl  Muller,  "  Luther  und  Karlstadt,"  1907  (with  a  discussion 
of  G.  Barge's  "  Andreas  Bodenstein  v.  Karlstadt"),  and  "  Kirche,  Ge- 
meinde  und  Obrigkeit  nach  Luther,"  1910. 

III.— 2  C 


386  LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

gulden  as  a  pledge  that  he  was  at  liberty  to  write  against 
him  without  reserve  and  that  he  did  not  mind  in  the  least  : 
"  Take  it  and  attack  me  like  a  man,  don't  fear  !  "*  Shortly 
after,  however,  he  complained  of  the  treatment  he  had 
received  :  "At  the  inn  at  Jena  ...  he  turned  upon  me 
and  abused  me,  snapped  his  fingers  at  me  and  said :  '  I 
don't  care  that  for  you.'  But  if  he  does  not  respect  me; 
whom,  then,  amongst  us  does  he  respect  ?  "2 

The  struggle  continued  after  they  had  gone  their  ways, 
both  seeking  to  secure  the  favour  of  the  Court.  Luther, 
through  the  agency  of  Prince  Johann  Frederick,  proposed 
that  Carlstadt  should  be  hounded  from  his  place  of  refuge 
and  from  the  whole  upper  valley  of  the  Saale.  Ultimately 
the  disturber  of  the  peace  was  banished  from  the  Electorate  ; 
Luther,  in  his  work  "  Widder  die  hymelischen  Propheten," 
approved  of  his  expulsion,  roughly  declaring  that,  so  far  as 
lay  in  him,  Carlstadt  would  never  again  set  foot  in  the 
country.3  The  homeless  man  now  betook  himself  to  Stras- 
burg,  whither  he  was  pursued  by  a  furious  letter  of  Luther's, 
directed  against  him  and  his  teaching,  entitled  "  An  die 
Christen  zu  Straspurg  widder  den  Schwermer  Geyst." 

Luther  became  greatly  enraged  when  he  perceived  that 
the  denial  of  the  Sacrament,  already  widespread  in  Switzer- 
land, was  also  gaining  ground  at  Strasburg  and  was  being 
adopted  by  Capito  and  Bucer.  In  his  excitement,  in  the 
hope  of  checking  the  falling  away  from  his  doctrine,  of 
closing  the  mouth  of  that  "  fiend  "  Carlstadt — who  likewise 
stood  for  the  denial  of  the  Sacrament — and  of  preventing 
"  the  overthrow  of  all  political  and  ecclesiastical  order,"  he 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  340  ;  Erl.  ed.,  64,  p.  394  f.,  from  the 
"  Report  "  on  their  meeting. 

2  "Widder  die  hymelischen  Propheten,"  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  18, 
p.  89  ;    Erl.  ed.,  29,  p.  165. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  86=162  :  He  points  out  why  Andrew  Carlstadt,  "  so  far 
as  my  prayers  may  avail,  shall  not  be  permitted  to  come  in  again,  but 
shall  again  depart  should  he  secure  admittance,  unless  he  becomes  a 
new  Andrew,  to  which  may  God  help  him."  He  had  not  interpreted 
the  law  of  Moses  aright  nor  applied  it  to  the  authorities,  but  to  the 
common  people.  The  authorities  ought  to  forbid  the  country  to  such 
preachers  as  did  not  teach  quietly  but  drew  the  mob  to  them,  pulled 
down  images  and  destroyed  churches  at  their  pleasure  behind  the 
backs  of  the  authorities.  Carlstadt's  spirit  and  that  of  his  followers  was 
a  "  spirit  of  murder  and  revolt."  Here  he  does  not  refer  to  the  differ- 
ence on  the  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament.  Cp.  Karl  Miiller,  "  Luther  und 
Karlstadt,"  pp.  175-178.  For  the  circumstances  attending  his  banish- 
ment, see  below,  p.  391  f. 


CARLSTADT  387 

penned,  in  the  course  of  a  few  weeks,  a  violent  screed 
entitled,  "  Widder  die  hymelischen  Propheten."  The 
knowledge  that  everywhere  revolt  "  was  being  associated 
with  the  Lutheran  doctrines  and  reforms  "*  roused  his 
terrible  eloquence,  of  which  the  principal  aim  was  to 
annihilate  Carlstadt.  Having  completed  the  first  part, 
comprising  seventy  pages  of  print  in  the  Erlangen  edition, 
he  rushed  this  through  the  press  as  a  preliminary  instalment, 
informing  his  readers  at  the  end  that  "  the  remainder  will 
follow  on  foot."2  As  good  as  his  word,  three  weeks  later, 
he  had  ready  the  conclusion,  consisting  of  nearly  one  hundred 
pages  of  print.  He  asserts  that  Carlstadt  had,  "  for  three 
years,  been  making  a  hash  "  of  his  books  ;  he  was  even 
anxious  to  throw  them  all  overboard.  Luther's  strongest 
argument  against  him  was  the  revolutionary  peril  which 
this  man  represented.  Even  if  he  did  not  actually  plot 
"  murder  and  revolt,"  he  writes,  "  yet  I  must  say  that  he 
has  a  murderous  and  revolutionary  spirit.  .  .  .  Because  he 
carries  a  dagger,  I  do  not  trust  him  ;  he  might  well  be 
simply  awaiting  a  good  opportunity  to  do  what  I  apprehend. 
By  the  dagger  I  mean  his  false  interpretation  and  under- 
standing of  the  Law  of  Moses.".3  "  What  is  the  use  of 
admonishing  him  ?  '  he  writes,  alluding  to  Carlstadt's 
departure  from  the  Lutheran  interpretation  of  the  Bible 
and  his  obstinacy  in  accepting  no  exegesis  but  his  own  ;  "  I 
believe  that  he  still  considers  me  one  of  the  most  learned 
men  at  Wittenberg  and  yet  he  tells  me  to  my  very  face,  that 
I  am  of  no  account,  though  all  the  while  he  pretends  to  be 
quite  willing  to  be  instructed."4 

From  Strasburg,  Carlstadt,  the  restless  wanderer,  had 
gone  to  Rothenburg-on-the-Tauber,  a  hotbed  of  Anabaptists. 
It  was  whilst  here,  that  finding  himself  in  dire  want,  he 
besought  Luther's  aid,  at  a  time  when  the  latter  had  not 
yet  finished  the  above  writing  against  him  ;  he,  however, 
frustrated  all  hopes  of  any  reconciliation  by  previously 
penning  a  defence  of  his  own  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament 
against  the  Wittenberg  professor.  The  unfortunate  termina- 
tion of  the  Peasant  War  exposed  him  to  grave  danger, 

1  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  676. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  18,  p.  125  ;  Erl.  ed„  29,  p.  205.  The  first  part 
was  in  print  at  the  end  of  1524,  the  second  part  about  the  end  of 
January,  1525.     Kostlin-Kawerau,  p.  685. 

3  "  Werke,"  ibid.,  pp.  88,  213  =  165,  296.       4  Ibid.,  p.  89-165,  166. 


388         LUTHER   THE   REFORMER 

owing  to  the  sympathy  he  was  generally  believed  to  have 
displayed  for  the  rebels.  He  was  accordingly  compelled  to 
seek  Luther's  good  offices.  In  compliance  with  Luther's 
requirements,  he  agreed  no  longer  to  defend  his  own  teach- 
ing, concerning  the  Sacrament  as  a  thesis,  but  merely  as  an 
opinion  ;  he  also  promised  the  Elector  in  writing  hence- 
forth neither  to  preach  nor  to  write  in  favour  of  his  views, 
but  "  to  hold  his  tongue  and  support  himself  by  his  work."1 
Peace   was   now  finally   secured  between   Luther   and   his 

submissive  and  obedient  slave,"  as  Carlstadt  styles  him- 
self, greatly  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  former.2  Thanks  to 
Luther's  intercession  at  Court,  the  fugitive  was  allowed  to 
return  to  the  country,  but,  as  for  his  part  in  the  Ana- 
baptist disturbances,  this  was,  as  Luther  insisted,  to  be 
judged  upon  "  according  to  established  law."  Carlstadt 
even  lay  in  hiding  for  a  while  at  Luther's  house.3  After  this 
he  lived  for  some  three  years  at  Kamberg,  earning  a  poor 
living  by  tilling  the  soil  and  keeping  a  small  grocer's  shop. 

When  he  broke  his  promise  to  keep  silence,  and  again 
renewed  his  complaints  concerning  Luther,  and  bewailed 
his  own  reduced  circumstances,  dissensions  broke  out  afresh 
between  them.  Luther,  who  was  greatly  vexed,  was  very 
anxious  to  find  some  new  means  of  muzzling  his  opponent. 
He  proposed  that  he  should  in  no  case  advocate  in  the 
presence  of  others  his  own  theological  opinions  or  his  private 
interpretation  of  the  Bible,  though  he  might  cherish  them 
as  his  private  convictions,  for  of  the  heart  no  man  is  judge  ; 
doctrines  which  differed  from  his  own,  so  Luther  declared, 
were  not  to  be  defended  publicly,  else  they  would  come 
under  the  cognisance  of  the  authorities.  Under  these 
circumstances  Carlstadt  thought  it  better  to  depart.  In  the 
beginning  of  1529  he  escaped,  and,  in  1530,  found  a  home  in 
Switzerland,  where  he  enjoyed  a  quieter  life  and  was  free  to 
proceed  with  his  theological  labours.  "  Luther,  like  Carl- 
stadt, never  doubted  for  a  moment  that  his  doctrine  was 

1  Luther  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  September  12,  1525,  "  Werke," 
Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  327  ("  Brief wechsel,"  5,  p.  240). 

2  Carlstadt  to  Luther,  previous  to  September  12,  1525,  "  Brief  - 
wechsel  Luthers,"  5,  p.  239  :  "  Fui  olim  frater  (tuus)  fortasse  non 
nimium  commodus  sed  posthac  mancipium  ero  et  obsequibile  et  suspiciens." 
He  describes  to  Luther  the  poverty  to  which  he,  with  his  wife  and  child, 
were  reduced. 

3  See  passage  from  Alberus,  in  Enders,  "  Briefwechsel,"  ibid.,  p. 
240,  n.  1. 


CARLSTADT  389 

really  founded  on  Scripture.  Hence  Luther  and  the  Elector 
felt  themselves  bound  in  conscience  to  defend  as  best  they 
could  the  Christian  faith  and  their  country  against  any 
invasion  of  false  doctrine."  Such  is  the  considered  judg- 
ment of  a  Protestant  historian.1 

For  the  period  subsequent  to  1534,  when  Carlstadt  at 
length  began  to  lead  a  more  tranquil  life  as  professor  and 
preacher  at  Basle,  the  Table-Talk  is  the  principal  source  of 
information  concerning  Luther's  relations  with  him. 

Luther,  in  his  conversations,  frequently  referred  to  his 
former  friend,  particularly  in  1538. 

"He,  like  Bucer,  greatly  retarded  the  progress  of  the  Evangel 
by  his  arrogance.  In  other  matters  pride  of  intellect  is  not  so 
dangerous,  but  in  theology  it  is  utterly  pestilential  to  desire  to 
arrogate  anything  to  oneself.  .  .  .  Hence  I  was  greatly  troubled 
when  Carlstadt  once  remarked  to  me  :  '  I  am  as  fond  of  honour 
as  any  other  man.'  At  Leipzig  he  refused  to  concede  me  the  first 
place  at  the  Disputation  lest  I  should  rob  him  of  his  part  of  the 
praise.  And  yet  I  was  always  glad  to  do  him  a  favour.  But  he 
reaped  shame  instead  of  honour  at  Leipzig,  for  no  worse  disputant 
could  be  imagined  than  a  man  of  so  dull  and  wretched  a  spirit. 
...  At  first  he,  like  Peter  Lupinus,  withstood  me,  but  when  I 
rebutted  them  with  Augustine,  they,  too,  studied  Augustine  and 
then  insisted  upon  my  doctrine  more  than  I  did  myself.  Carl- 
stadt, however,  was  deceived  by  his  arrogance."2  Indeed,  Carl- 
stadt belonged  to  the  category  of  the  "  arrogantissimi." 3 

Elsewhere  Luther  again  says  similar  things  without  noticing,  so 
it  would  seem,  that  others  might  have  complained  of  his  "  arro- 
gance "  just  as  much  as  he  did  of  Carlstadt 's.  Carlstadt  is  "  full 
of  presumption,"  and  this  "  brought  about  his  fall  as  it  did  that 
of  Miinzer,  Zwingli,  GEcolampadius,  Stiefel,  and  Eisleben." 
"  Such  people,  weak  and  untried  though  they  be,  are  puffed 
up  with  self-sufficiency  before  the  victory,  whereas  I  have 
my  daily  struggles."  Before  this  Luther  had  declared  that  he 
was  "  plagued  and  vexed  by  the  devil,  whose  bones  are  strong 
until  we  crack  them."4 — "It  was  impossible  to  make  of  Carl- 
stadt a  humble  man  because  he  had  been  through  no  real  mental 
temptations."5 — "He,  like  Miinzer  and  Zwingli,  was  rash  when 
good  fortune  attended  him,  but  an  arrant  coward  in  misfortune  "  ;6 
Luther  here  was  probably  recalling  how  Carlstadt,  the  unhappy 
married  priest,  had  been  forced  to  humble  himself  before  him 

1  K.  Miiller,  "  Luther  und  Karlstadt,"  p.  194. 

2  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  190. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  161.  4  Ibid.,  p.  144. 

5  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  88. 

6  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  124. 


390  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

owing  to  the  dire  want  and  danger  in  which  he  and  his  family 
found  themselves. 

"  Had  not  Carlstadt  come  on  the  scene  with  the  fanatics, 
Miinzer  and  the  Anabaptists,  all  would  have  gone  well  with  my 
undertaking.  But  though  I  alone  lifted  it  out  of  the  gutter,  they 
wished  to  seize  upon  the  prize  and  poach  upon  my  preserves, 
though,  owing  to  the  way  they  went  about  the  business,  they 
were  really  working  for  the  Pope  though  all  the  while  anxious 
to  destroy  him."1 

Luther  afterwards  held  fast  to  the  opinion  concerning  his 
enemy  which  he  had  expressed  long  before  in  a  letter  to 
Spalatin  :  "  Carlstadt  has  now  been  delivered  over  to  a 
reprobate  spirit  so  that  I  despair  of  his  return.  He  always 
was,  and  probably  always  will  be,  unmindful  of  the  glory  of 
Christ ;  his  insensate  ambition  has  brought  him  to  this.  To 
me,  nay,  to  us,  he  is  more  troublesome  than  any  foe,  so  that 
I  believe  the  unhappy  man  to  be  possessed  by  more  than  one 
devil.    God  have  mercy  on  his  sin,  so  far  as  it  is  mortal."2 

In  1541  the  news  of  his  rival's  death  reached  him.  It 
was  rumoured  that  he  had  died  impenitent,  that  the  devil 
had  appeared  at  his  death-bed,  had  fetched  him  away,  and 
continued  to  make  a  great  noise  in  his  house.3  Luther 
believed  these  tales.  It  was  not  surprising,  so  he  said,  that 
Carlstadt  had  at  last  received  his  deserts,4  though  he  was 
sorry  he  should  have  died  impenitent.5 

It  only  remains  to  glance  at  the  arguments  Luther  brought 
forward  and  at  the  theoretical  attitude  he  assumed  with 
regard  to  Carlstadt  and  his  followers.  If  we  take  the  book 
"  Widder  die  hymelischen  Propheten  "  and  the  writing  he 
addressed  to  the  Strasburg  Christians  against  the  fanatics, 
and  consider  the  answers  and  objections  they  drew  forth, 
we  shall  have  a  strange  picture  of  Luther's  wTays  of  reason- 
ing and  of  his  crooked  lines  of  thought.  Not  that  his 
ability  and  eloquence  failed  him,  but,  for  clearness  and 
coherence,  his  doctrine  and  whole  conduct  leave  everything 
to  be  desired.  In  his  book  he  attacks  not  Carlstadt  alone, 
but,  as  he  says  :  "  Carlstadt  and  his  spirits,"  i.e.  all  those 
opponents  of  his  whom  he  was  pleased  to  dub  "  fanatics." 

1  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  37. 

2  On  September  13,  1524,  "  Brief wechsel,"  5,  p.  23. 

3  To  Jacob  Probst,  March  26,    1542,   "  Briefe,"  ed.  De  Wette,  5, 
p.  452.  4  To  Amsdorf,  April  13,  1542,  ibid.,  p.  463. 

5  To  Probst,  as  above. 


CARLSTADT  391 

"  Fanaticism  "  to  him  means  not  merely  that  fanciful 
interpretation  of  the  Bible  based  on  special  illumination, 
to  which  his  opponents  were  attached,  but  more  particularly 
the  threefold  error  for  which  they  stood,  viz.  their  denial  of 
the  Sacrament  (i.e.  of  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ  in  the 
Supper),  their  iconoclasm,  and,  thirdly,  their  repudiation  of 
infant  baptism.  As  for  the  various  elements  of  good,  which, 
in  spite  of  all  their  mistakes,  were  shared  by  the  earlier 
Anabaptists,  Luther  refused  cat:  gorically  to  see  them  or 
to  hearken  to  the  fanatics'  well-grounded  remonstrances 
against  certain  of  his  propositions. 

To  preach,  a  man  must  be  called  by  God,  so  he  lays  it 
down.  Had  your  spirit  "  been  the  true  one,  it  would  have 
manifested  itself  by  word  and  sign  ;  but  in  reality  it  is  a 
murderous,  secret  devil."1  Luther  demands  miracles  with 
as  much  confidence  as  though  he  himself  could  point  to 
them  in  plenty. 

Those  preachers  who  ventured  to  differ  from  him,  he 
invites,  at  the  very  least,  to  point  to  their  ecclesiastical 
vocation.  But  what  sort  of  a  vocation  was  this  to  be,  they 
asked.  As  Luther  recognised  no  universal  Church  visible, 
a  call  emanating  from  a  congregation  of  believers  had  to 
suffice  ;  Carlstadt,  for  instance,  could  appeal  to  his  having 
been  chosen  by  Orlamunde  as  its  pastor.  This  Luther  would 
not  allow  :  You  must  also  have  the  consent  of  the  Elector 
and  of  the  University  of  Wittenberg.  Carlstadt  and  those 
who  felt  with  him  were  well  aware,  that,  in  the  final  instance, 
this  simply  meant  Luther's  own  consent,  for  at  the  University 
he  was  all-powerful,  whilst  the  sovereign  likewise  was 
wont  to  be  guided  by  him.  Why,  Carlstadt  might  also  have 
asked,  should  not  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity  suffice 
in  my  case,  seeing  that  you  yourself  have  solemnly  pleaded 
your  degree  as  a  sufficient  justification  for  assailing  the 
common  tradition  of  Christendom  ? 

Luther's  final  answer  to  such  an  appeal  was  as  follows  : 

"  My  devil,  I  know  you  well."2 

He  was  determined  to  hound  out  of  his  last  hiding-place 
his  presumptuous  rival,  many  of  whose  doctrines,  it  must 
be  admitted,  were  both  mistaken  and  dangerous.  Hence 
the  measure  which  he  induced  the  Elector  to  take  in  1524, 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  18,  p.  213  ;   Erl.  ed.,  29,  296. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  134  =  206. 


392  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

according  to  which  Carlstadt  was  to  be  refused  shelter 
throughout  the  Electorate  ;  this  example  was  also  followed 
by  the  magistrates  of  Rothenburg-on-the-Tauber,  who,  by 
an  edict  of  January  27,  1525,  commanded  all  burghers  by 
virtue  of  their  oath  and  fealty  "  not  to  house,  shelter,  or 
hide,  provide  with  food  and  drink,  or  further  on  his  way  the 
said  Dr.  Carlstadt,"  adding,  that  a  similar  prohibition  had 
been  published  in  "  other  lordships  and  Imperial  cities 
both  near  and  far."1 

When  seeking  to  retain  the  support  of  the  burghers  of 
Strasburg,  Luther  had  made  a  display  of  broadminded  for- 
bearance and  charity.  What  he  then  said  is  often  quoted 
by  his  followers  as  proof  of  his  kindliness  and  humility. 
"  Take  heed  that  you  show  brotherly  charity  towards  one 
another  in  very  deed."  "  I  am  not  your  preacher.  No  one 
is  bound  to  believe  me,  let  each  one  look  to  himself.  To  warn 
all  I  am  able,  but  stop  any  man  I  cannot."  Yet  he  con- 
tinues :  "  Carlstadt  makes  a  great  fuss  about  outward  things 
as  though  Christianity  consisted  in  knocking  down  images, 
overthrowing  the  Sacrament,  and  preventing  Baptism ; 
by  the  dust  he  raises  he  seeks  to  darken  the  sun,  and  the 
brightness  of  the  Evangel,  and  the  main  facts  of  Christian 
faith  and  practice,  so  that  the  world  may  forget  all  that  has 
hitherto  been  taught  by  us."2  Luther's  own  doctrine, 
in  spite  of  his  preliminary  assurance,  was  alone  to  stand, 
because,  forsooth,  it  reveals  the  true  jsun  to  the  world. 

What,  however,  had  he  to  oppose  to  the  "  knocking 
down  of  images  "  and  the  "  overthrow  of  the  Sacrament  "  ? 
Did  his  standpoint  afford  sufficient  resistance,  or  was  it 
more  than  a  mere  subterfuge  ? 

The  pulling  down  of  images  and  the  overthrow  of  the 
Sacrament,  Luther  tells  Carlstadt,  agreeably  with  his  own 
feelings  at  that  time,  may  be  introduced  little  by  little,  but 
must  not  be  made  into  a  law.  Everyone  is  free  to  put  away 
his  images,  to  deny  the  Sacrament,  or  to  refuse  to  receive  it ; 
let  him  follow  his  own  conscience  as  it  is  the  right  and  duty 
of  every  man  to  do.  Luther,  however,  is  forgetful  of  the 
restrictions  he  was  in  the  habit  of  placing  upon  Catholic 
practices,  of  how  he  refused  to  admit  the  rights  of  conscience 

1  In  "  Thomas  Zweifels  Rothenburg  im  Bauernkrieg,"  ed.  Baumann 
("  Bibl.  des  Litt.  Vereins  in  Stuttgart,"  139),  p.  20. 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  53,  pp.  271,  273. 


CARLSTADT  393 

in  the  matter  of  the  Mass  and  the  religious  life,  notwith- 
standing that  Catholics  could  appeal  to  the  age-long  practice 
of  the  Church  in  every  land,  and  of  his  denial  of  the  existence 
or  even  of  the  possibility  of  good  faith  amongst  any  of  his 
opponents,  whether  within  or  without  his  own  fold.  In 
his  book  against  the  "  Heavenly  Prophets  "  he  declares  it 
to  be  "  optional  to  wear  a  cowl  or  the  tonsure  ...  in  this 
there  is  neither  commandment  nor  prohibition,"  "  to  wear 
the  tonsure,  to  put  on  albs  and  chasubles,  etc.  is  a  thing 
God  has  neither  commanded  nor  forbidden."  "  Doctrine, 
command,  and  compulsion  are  not  to  be  tolerated."1  Here 
we  see  the  confused  after-effects  of  his  old,  pseudo-mystic 
conception  of  a  religion  of  freedom,  involving  no  duty  of 
submission  to  any  external  authority  in  the  matter  of 
"  doctrine  or  command."  (See  p.  8  ff.) 

Granting  that  any  real  tolerance  underlay  these  state- 
ments, the  fanatics  could  ask  :  "  Why,  then,  not  include  our 
peculiarities,  for  instance,  our  penitential  dress,  our  grey 
frock,  and  outward,  pious  practices  ?  "  Luther,  however,  will 
hear  of  no  self-chosen  works  of  penance,  and  condemns 
indiscriminately  those  of  the  fanatics  and  the  more  measured 
ones  preferred  by  Catholics,  in  spite  of  mortification  being 
recommended  by  the  example  of  the  saints  both  of  the 
Old  and  the  New  Covenant  and  of  Christ  Himself.  Of 
the  last  Luther  says  quite  openly  that  Christ's  example 
taught  us  nothing  ;  not  Christ's  works,  but  merely  His 
express  words  were  to  be  our  example.  "  What  He  wished 
us  to  do  or  leave  undone,  that  He  not  only  did  or  left  undone 
but  also  enjoined  or  forbade  in  so  many  words.  .  .  .  Hence 
we  .admit  no  example,  not  even  that  of  Christ  Himself."2 
Elsewhere  he  also  excludes  the  Evangelical  Counsels  of 
Perfection,  although  they  are  not  only  based  on  example, 
but  are  also  expressed  in  words.  Yet  here,  in  a  particular 
instance,  he  departs  from  his  theory  that  only  Christ's 
express  injunctions  are  binding  ;  Carlstadt  had  done  away 
with  the  elevation  of  the  Sacrament  in  Divine  Worship  ; 
this  Luther  disapproved  of ;  he  acknowledges,  however, 
that  Christ  did  not  do  so  at  the  Last  Supper,  though  we  do. 
— He  does  not  tell  us  when  or  how  Christ  enjoined  this  by 
"  word." 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  18,  p.  112  ff.  ;  Erl.  ed.,  p.  29,  p.  190  ff. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  114  =  193. 


394  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

What  the  motives  were  which  led  to  his  decisions  on  such 
usages  we  see  from  the  following.  Speaking  to  Carlstadt's 
party  he  says  :  "  Although  I  too  had  the  intention  of  doing 
away  with  the  Elevation,  yet,  now,  the  better  to  defy  and 
oppose  for  a  while  the  fanatical  spirit,  I  shall  not  do  so."1 
In  the  same  way,  "  in  defiance  of  the  spirit  of  the  mob,  he 
intends  to  call  the  Sacrament  a  Sacrifice,  though  it  is  not 
really  one,  but  simply  the  reception  of  what  was  once  a 
sacrifice."  We  cannot  wonder  if  the  sectarians  looked  upon 
this  spirit  of  defiance  and  contradiction  as  something 
strange.  One  of  them  during  this  controversy  complained 
with  some  justice  that  Luther,  according  to  his  own  admis- 
sion, had  thundered  forth  many  of  his  theses  merely  because 
the  Papists  "  had  pressed  him  so  hard,"  and  not  from  any 
inner  conviction.2  Contradiction  was  to  him  sufficient  reason 
for  narrowing  the  freedom  of  others  in  the  matter  of  doctrine. 

The  new  Christian  freedom  Luther  vindicates  in  his 
book  "  Widder  die  hymelischen  Propheten,"  more  par- 
ticularly in  respect  of  the  Old  Testament  Commandments. 
At  that  time,  strange  to  say,  the  fanatics  were  set  on 
imposing  certain  of  the  Mosaic  laws  on  both  public  and 
ecclesiastical  life,  under  the  impression  that  they  were 
precepts  divinely  ordained  for  all  time.  For  this  Luther's 
own  violent  and  one-sided  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  in 
defiance  of  all  tradition,  was  really  responsible  ;  indeed,  he 
himself  was  not  disinclined  to  lay  undue  stress  on  Mosaism. 
(See  vol.  v.,  xxix.,  xxxv.  6.) 

The  fanatics'  exaggerations  were,  however,  too  much 
for  Luther.  In  his  efforts  to  oppose  their  trend  he  goes  so 
far  as  to  include  even  the  Decalogue,  when  he  exclaims  : 
"  Don't  bother  us  with  Moses  "  ;  the  Ten  Commandments 
are  disfigured  with  Mosaism,  so  he  says,  for  they  prescribe 
the  Sabbath  and  forbid  images  ;  it  was  stupid  to  see  in  the 
Decalogue  nothing  more  than  moral  commandments  and 
precepts  of  the  natural  law.3  Not  on  account  of  this  law 
do  we  observe  the  weekly  day  of  rest,  but  because  we  need 
a  rest  and  regular  times  for  Divine  worship,  viz.  out  of  love 
for  our  neighbour  and  from  necessity.  It  is  no  easy  matter 
to  reconcile  this  with  Luther's  own  praiseworthy  practice  of 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  18,  p.  116  ;  Erl.  ed.,  29,  p.  194. 

2  Ickelsamer,    "  Clag,"   etc.   (ed.  Enders,   "  Neudrucke,"  No.    118, 
1893).    Cp.  for  instance  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  24,  p.  209  ;  53,  p.  274. 

3  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  687. 


CARLSTADT  395 

teaching  the  Commandments  and  seeing  that  the  young 
were  instructed  in  them,  or  with  the  great  respect  with 
which  he  surrounded  the  Decalogue.  The  Church's  view,  as 
expounded  by  St.  Thomas,  was  both  better  and  more 
logical,  viz.  that  the  Ten  Commandments  were  the  primary 
and  common  precepts  of  the  law  of  nature,1  and  that  the 
alteration  in  the  third  Commandment,  introduced  by  the 
Church  concerning  the  day  (Sunday  in  place  of  the  Sabbath), 
was  merely  a  minor  detail  not  affecting  the  real  substance  of 
the  Commandment. 

That,  however,  the  Sunday,  instead  of  the  Saturday,  was 
to  be  observed  as  holy  was  a  point  on  which  Luther  had 
perforce  to  content  himself  with  that  very  tradition  which 
he  had  so  often  abused. 

Tradition  likewise  was  his  only  authority  for  defending 
Infant  Baptism  with  so  much  determination  against  the 
fanatics.  It  is  true,  that,  in  order  to  deprive  his  opponents 
of  their  chief  argument,  he  put  forth  the  strange  theory, 
treated  of  elsewhere,  *  that  infants  are  able  to  believe.2 
Elsewhere,  too,  he  seeks  to  persuade  himself,  in  spite  of  all 
difficulties,  that  infants  in  some  way  or  other  co-operate  in 
the  baptismal  work  of  justification  by  means  of  some  sort 
of  faith. 

On  the  other  hand,  he  confutes  Carlstadt's  opinion  as  to 
the  figurative  sense  of  the  Eucharistic  words  of  consecration 
in  a  masterly  dissertation  on  their  real  meaning.  Here  he 
holds  the  field  because  his  interpretation  is  conformable 
both  with  that  of  antiquity  and  with  the  dictates  of  reason. 
We  find  him  demolishing  Carlstadt's  stupidities  by  appeals 
to  reason,  but  here  Luther  is  in  contradiction  with  himself, 
for  in  another  part  of  the  book,  where,  for  his  purpose,  it 
was  essential  to  make  out  reason  to  be  absolutely  blind  as 
regards  doctrine,  he  has  the  strongest  invectives  against  it 
or  any  use  of  reason  in  matters  of  faith.  In  the  case  of 
Carlstadt's  objections  against  the  Sacramental  Presence  of 
Christ,  he  had  been  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  proofs  based 
on  reason,  yet  in  the  other  passage  he  says  :  "  As  if  we  did 
not  know  that  reason  is  the  devil's  handmaid  and  does 
nothing  but  blaspheme  and  dishonour  all  that  God  says  or 

1  "  Summatheol.,"  1-2,  q.  C.  a.  3. 

2  In  a  letter  to  Spalatin  as  early  as  May  29,  1522,  "  Brief wechsel,"  3, 
p.  377. 


396  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

does."1  To  come  to  him  with  such  a  Frau  Hulda  (the  name 
by  which  he  ridicules  reason)  "  is  mere  devil's  roguery."2 
In  his  contempt  for  reason  he  goes  so  far  as  to  advocate  a 
new  theory  of  the  omnipresence  of  Christ's  body,  in  heaven 
and  everywhere  on  earth,  in  spite  of  the  impossibility  such 
a  thing  would  involve. 

It  was  quite  at  variance  with  his  habitual  exhortations 
and  commands  for  him  calmly  to  inform  the  fanatics  that, 
whoever  does  not  wish  to  receive  the  Sacrament  may  leave 
it  alone.  The  only  effect  of  receiving  the  Sacrament  now 
appears  to  him  to  be,  that  it  strengthens  in  us  the  Word  of 
faith  in  Christ,  and  is  a  consolation  to  troubled  consciences. 
It  is  true  that  he  proves  himself  a  fiery  advocate  of  the 
literal  sense  of  the  words  of  institution  and  a  passionate 
defender  of  the  Sacramental  Presence,  yet  the  meagre 
effect  he  concedes  to  the  Eucharist  makes  his  fervour 
somewhat  difficult  to  understand,  for  there  is  no  doubt  that 
he  minimises  both  the  graces  we  receive  through  the  Sacra- 
ment and  the  greatness  of  the  gift  of  Christ ;  apart  from 
this  he  altogether  excludes  the  sacrificial  character  of  the 
Supper.  Still,  his  zeal  for  the  defence  of  the  Eucharist 
against  those  who  denied  it  was  so  great,  that,  out  of  defiance, 
he  was  anxious  to  retain  even  the  Latin  wording  of  his 
"  Liturgy  "  and,  to  this  end,  made  a  pathetic  appeal  to  the 
chapter  in  which  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  use  of  strange 
tongues  (1  Cor.  xiv.),  which  Luther  thought  might  be 
understood  of  the  language  used  in  the  Mass. 

The  list  of  feeble  arguments  and  self-contradictions  found 
in  this  remarkable  book  might  be  indefinitely  lengthened, 
though,  on  the  other  hand,  it  also  contains  many  a  practical 
and  striking  refutation  of  views  held  by  the  fanatics. 

In  the  press  of  his  personal  struggle,  and  in  spite  of  all  his 
scorn  for  his  opponents'  "  spiritism,"  Luther  could  not 
refrain  from  bringing  forward  against  Carlstadt  a  prophecy 
of  the  "  higher  spirit."  This  prophecy  had  condemned 
Carlstadt  beforehand  and  had  foretold  that  he  would  not 
long  share  our  faith  ;  this  has  now  been  fulfilled  to  the 
letter,  so  that  "  I  cannot  but  understand  it."3  Unfortu- 
nately,  before  this,  the  opposite  party  had  discovered  a 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  18,  p.  164  ;   Erl.  ed.,  29,  p.  241. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  182f.  =  261. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  18,  p.  115  ;   Erl.  ed.,  29,  p.  194. 


CARLSTADT  397 

prediction  against  Luther,  an  "  ancient  prophecy  "  which 
was  certainly  about  to  be  fulfilled  in  Luther,  viz.  "  that 
the  black  monk  must  first  come  and  cause  all  mischief."1 

As  was  to  be  expected,  Luther  preferred,  however,  to  lay 
greater  stress  on  other  considerations  which  might  assist 
him  to  gain  the  upper  hand.  He  returns  to  his  favourite 
asseveration  :  "  If  what  I  have  begun  is  of  God,  no  one  will 
be  able  to  hinder  it ;  if  it  is  not,  I  shall  most  assuredly  not 
uphold  it."2  But  not  to  "  uphold  it  "  with  all  the  force  and 
passion  at  his  command,  was,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  impossible 
to  him.  "  No  one  shall  take  it  from  me  !  "  he  exclaims, 
almost  in  the  same  breath  with  the  above,  and  though  he 
indeed  adds  "  save  God  alone,"  still  he  knew  perfectly  well 
that  God  would  not  appear  personally  in  order  to  wrestle 
with  him.  Moreover,  he  will  have  it  that  the  crucial  test 
had  occurred  long  before  and  had  entirely  vindicated  him. 
So  great  a  work  as  he  had  achieved  could  not,  he  assures  us, 
have  been  "  built  "  without  God's  help  ;  not  he  but  a  higher 
power  was  the  builder,  though,  so  far  as  he  was  concerned, 
he  had  "  in  the  main  laboured  well  and  rightly  [this  to  the 
Strasburg  dissenters],3  so  that  whoever  avers  the  contrary 
cannot  be  a  good  spirit ;  I  hope  I  shall  have  no  worse  luck 
in  the  outward  matters  upon  which  these  prophets  are  so 
fond  of  harping."  In  "  outward  matters,"  however,  he  was 
cautious  enough  to  restrict  his  claim  within  his  favourite 
province  of  freedom.  He  calls  it  "  spiritual  freedom,"  not 
to  make  iconoclasm  a  duty,  to  leave  each  one  at  liberty  to 
receive,  or  not  receive,  the  Sacrament,  and  not  to  insist  on 
the  wearing  of  grey  frocks.  He  is  also  careful  not  to  pre- 
scribe anything,  that,  by  way  of  outward  observances  they 
may  not  fall  back  into  Popery,  the  whole  essence  of  which 
consists  in  this  sort  of  thing. 

Luther,  however,  insists  all  the  more  on  the  "  Bible 
spirit,"  the  spirit  of  the  outward  Word. 

This,  in  spite  of  its  subjective  character,  is  to  be  set  up 
as  a  brazen  shield  against  the  private  judgment  of  the 
"  heavenly  prophets  "  and  their  inspirations.  It  is  true  his 
opponents  objected  that  he  himself  had  much  to  learn  from 
the  "  Bible  spirit,"  for  instance,  greater  meekness  and  a 

1  Ickelsamer,  "  Neudrucke,"  p.  53.  For  the  Prophecy  see  above, 
p.  165  f. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  18,  p.  134  ;  Erl.  ed.,  29,  p.  205. 

3  Ibid.,  15,  p.  394  =  53,  p.  274. 


398  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

resolution  to  proceed  without  stirring  up  "  dangerous 
enmities."  These,  however,  were  minor  matters  in  his  eyes. 
For  him  the  "  Bible  spirit  "  was  the  witness  and  safeguard 
of  his  treasured  doctrine. 

What  we  must  hearken  to  is  not  the  inward  Word— such  is 
his  emphatic  declaration  after  his  encounter  with  the  fanatics, 
in  flat  contradiction  to  his  earlier  statements  (see  above, 
p.  4  f.) — but  above  all  the  outward  Word  contained  in 
Scripture  :  if  we  do  otherwise  we  are  simply  following  the 
example  of  the  "  heavenly  prophets."  The  Pope  "  spoke 
according  to  his  own  fancy,"  paying  no  heed  to  the  outward 
Word,  but  I  speak  according  to  Scripture.1  All  that  was 
necessary  was  not  to  pervert  the  Bible,  as  the  fanatics  did  ; 
it  is  the  devil  who  gives  them  a  wrong  understanding  of 
Scripture,  indeed,  according  to  Luther,  there  is  no  heretic 
who  does  not  make  much  of  Scripture.  "  When  the  devil 
sees  that  the  Bible  is  used  as  a  weapon  against  him,  he  runs 
to  Scripture  and  raises  such  confusion  that  people  no  longer 
can  tell  who  has  the  right  interpretation.  When  I  quote 
Scripture  against  the  Papists  and  fanatics,  they  don't 
believe  me,  for  they  have  their  own  glosses."2  Hence,  such 
at  least  is  his  implicit  invitation,  they  must  hold  fast  to  his 
gloss  and  no  other.  For  I,  by  discovering  Scripture,  "  have 
delivered  the  world  from  the  horrid  darkness  of  Antichrist  ; 
nor  have  I  the  faintest  doubt,  but  am  entirely  convinced, 
that  our  Evangel  is  the  true  one."3  iC  The  heresies  and 
persecutions  rampant  amongst  us  are  merely  that  con- 
firmation of  the  truth  which  the  New  Testament  predicted 
(1  Cor.  xi.  19),  of  the  truth  which  I  preach.  Heresies  must 
needs  arise,"  etc.  etc. 

Finally — such  is  one  of  his  main  arguments  against  the 
"heavenly  prophets"  —  these  heretical  fanatics  do  not 
preach  the  "  chief  piece  of  Christian  doctrine  "  ;  they  "  do 
not  tell  people  how  to  get  rid  of  sin,  obtain  a  good  conscience, 
and  a  joyful  heart  at  peace  with  God,  which,  really,  is  the 
great  thing.  Here,  if  anywhere,  is  the  sign  that  their  spirit 
is  of  the  devil.  ...  Of  how  we  may  obtain  a  good  con- 
science they  are  utterly  ignorant,  for  they  have  never 
experienced  it."4     He,  on  the  other  hand,   thanks   to  his 

1  Sermon  of  1528,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  27,  p.  80. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  287. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  391  ;  Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  271  f.  ("  An  die 
Christen  zu  Straspurg  ").  4  Ibid.,  18,  p.  214  =  29,  p.  297. 


CARLSTADT  399 

doctrine,  had,  though  with  unheard-of  efforts,  won  his  way 
to  a  quiet  conscience,  and  by  this  impressed  an  infallible 
stamp  upon  his  Evangel ;  his  own  way  to  salvation  will  be 
the  way  of  all  who  trustfully  lay  hold  on  the  merits  of 
Christ.  Yet  it  is  not  the  way  for  all.  For  the  proud,  and  for 
all  who  are  full  of  self,  there  is  the  law  to  terrify  them  and 
lay  bare  their  sin.  It  is  only  to  the  "  troubled  consciences  " 
who  tremble  before  the  wrath  of  God,  to  the  simple,  the 
poor,  and  those  who  are  utterly  cast  down,  that  the  Evangel 
speaks.  But  these  fanatics  have  no  interior  combats  and 
death-struggles,  they  neither  humble  themselves  before  God, 
nor  do  they  pray.  "  This  I  know  and  am  certain  of,  that 
they  never  commenced  their  undertaking  by  imploring  God's 
help,  or  praying,  and  that,  even  now,  their  conscience  would 
not  allow  them  to  pray  for  a  happy  issue."1  Not  only  do 
they  not  pray,  but  they  are  simply  unable  to  pray  ;  they 
are  lost  souls  and  belong  to  the  devil, 

Never  let  us  in  any  single  thing  ever  trust  to  our  own 
knowledge  and  our  own  will.  "  I  prefer  to  listen  to  another 
rather  than  to  myself."  We  cannot  be  sufficiently  on  our 
guard  "  against  the  great  rascal  whom  we  bear  in  our 
hearts."2  The  fanatics  retorted  :  Well  may  you  speak  thus, 
"  you  who  soar  aloft  so  high  with  your  faith,"  you  who  are 
so  full  of  yourself  that  you  must  needs  use  us  as  your 
target ;  "  your  defiant  teaching  and  your  obstinacy  "  are 
well  known  to  all.3 

Carlstadt  and  his  fellows  were  not  to  be  converted  by 
such  outpourings  as  these. 

The  rebellious  fanatics  treated  the  writings  directed 
against  them  with  the  greatest  contempt.  Caspar  Glatz, 
who  had  replaced  Carlstadt  as  Lutheran  pastor  at  Orla- 
munde,  said  in  a  report  to  Wittenberg :  They  use  them  in  the 
privy,  as  I  myself  have  seen  and  heard  from  others.4 
Luther,  too,  indignantly  apprises  Wenceslaus  Link  of  this  : 
"  Rustici  nates  libello  meo  purgant,  sic  Satan  furit.  Thus 
doth  Satan  rage."5 

1  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  396  f.  =  53,  p.  276  f.  ("An  die 
Christen  zu  Straspurg"). 

2  Sermon  of  March  25,  1528,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  27,  p.  76  seq. 

3  Ickelsamer,  "  Neudrucke,"  pp.  43,  44,  45. 

4  Glatz  to  Luther,  January  18,  1525,  in  Enders,  "Luthers  Brief- 
wechsel,"  5,  p.  107. 

5  To  Link  at  Altenburg  on  February  7,  1525,  "  Brief wechsel,"  5,  p. 
122. 


400  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

The  most  important  change  called  forth  in  Luther  by  his 
encounters  with  the  fanatics  was  an  increasing  disinclination 
to  appeal  as  heretofore  to  any  extraordinary  divine  illumina- 
tion or  inspiration  of  his  own.  At  the  commencement  of  the 
conflict  he  had  been  in  the  habit  of  telling  them  :  "  I  also  was 
in  the  spirit,  I  also  have  seen  spirits  "  ;  now,  however,  little 
by  little,  as  we  shall  see  more  plainly  later  (vol.  iv.,  xxviii. 
1),  such  assurances  made  room  for  an  appeal  to  the  "Word." 
The  outward  Bible-Word,  the  meaning  of  which  he  had 
himself  discovered,  was  now  to  count  for  everything. 

Beneath  the  yoke  of  the  Word  he  was  anxious  to  compel 
also  his  other  opponents,  such  as  Agricola,  Schenk,  and 
Egranus,  to  pass. 

3.   Johann  Agricola,  Jacob  Schenk,  and  Johann  Egranus 

Johann  Agricola  of  Eisleben,  one  of  the  earliest  and  most 
violent  of  Luther's  assistants,  was  desirous  of  carrying  his 
doctrine  on  good  works  and  the  difference  between  the  Law 
and  the  Gospel  to  its  logical  conclusion.  His  modifications 
and  criticism  of  Luther's  doctrine  called  forth  the  latter's 
vigorous  denunciation.  Agricola  had  to  thank  his  own 
restlessness,  and  "  the  burden  of  Luther's  superiority  and 
hostility,"  for  what  he  endured  so  long  as  Luther  lived.1 
As  the  details  of  the  quarrel  are  reserved  for  later  con- 
sideration (vol.  v.,  xxix.  3),  we  shall  here  merely  indicate 
Luther's  behaviour  by  quoting  a  few  of  his  utterances. 

"  The  foolish  fellow  was  concerned  about  his  honour,"  Luther 
says  very  characteristically  of  this  quarrel.  He  was  anxious 
"  that  the  Wittenbergers  should  be  nothing  and  Eisleben  every- 
thing.'"2 "  He  is  hardened,"  and  nothing  can  be  done  for  him  ; 
"  Agricola  says,  '  I,  too,  have  a  head.'  Well,  were  that  all  that 
God  requires,  I  might  say  I  have  one  too.  Thus  they  go  on  in  their 
obstinacy  and  see  not  that  they  are  in  the  wrong.  .  .  .  Our 
Lord  God  evidently  intends  to  go  on  worrying  me  yet  a  while  so 
as  to  defy  the  Papists."3  Elsewhere  he  says  :  "  Agricola  looks  on 
at  these  doings  with  a  merry  mien,  and  refuses  to  humble  him- 
self. Yet  he  has  submitted  his  recantation  to  me,  perhaps  in  the 
hope  that  I  would  treat  him  more  leniently.  But  I  shall  seek  the 
glory  of  Christ  and  not  his  ;  I  shall  pillory  him  and  his  words,  as  a 
cowardly,  proud,  impious  man,  who  has  done  much  harm  to  the 
Church."4 

1  Dollinger,  "  Die  Reformation,"  3,  p.  376.    Cp.  ibid.,  p.  372  ff. 

2  Forstemann,  "  Neues  Urkundenbuch  zur  Gesch.  der  Reformation," 
1,  p.  322. 

3  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  119.  4  Ibid.,  p.  138. 


JACOB   SCHENK  401 

Another  who  fell  into  serious  disagreements  with  Luther 
over  the  Antinomian  question  was  Dr.  Jacob  Schenk,  then 
preacher  at  Freiberg  in  Saxony  (afterwards  Court-preacher 
at  Weimar).  At  Wittenberg  his  conduct  began  to  give  rise 
to  suspicion  at  the  same  time  as  Agricola's.  He  was 
reported  to  have  said  in  a  sermon  :  Whoever  goes  on  preach- 
ing the  law,  is  possessed  of  the  devil.  The  eloquence  of  this 
man  of  no  mean  talents  was  as  great  as  his  aims  were 
strange. 

In  Lauterbach's  Diary  we  find  the  following,  under  date  October 
7,  1538,  concerning  Luther  and  Schenk  :  At  Luther's  table  the 
conversation  turned  upon  Jacob  Schenk,  "  who,  in  his  arrogant 
and  lying  fashion  was  doing  all  manner  of  things  [so  Luther 
declared]  which  he  afterwards  was  wont  to  deny.  Wherever 
he  was,  he  raised  up  strife,  relying  on  the  authority  of  the 
Prince  and  the  applause  of  the  people.  But  he  will  be  put 
to  shame  in  the  end  [so  Luther  went  on  to  say],  just  as  Johann 
Agricola,  who  enjoyed  great  consideration  at  Court  and  was 
almost  a  Privy  Councillor  ;  his  reputation  vanished  without 
my  having  any  hand  in  the  matter.  When  Schenk  preached 
at  Zeitz  he  gave  general  dissatisfaction.  The  wretched  man 
is  puffed  up  with  pride  and  deceives  himself  with  new-fangled 
words.  .  .  .  He  has  concealed  his  wickedness  under  a  Satanic 
hypocrisy  and  is  ever  aping  me.  Never  shall  I  trust  him  -again, 
no,  not  to  all  eternity."1 

Lauterbach  gives  a  striking  picture  of  Luther's  behaviour  at 
his  encounter  with  Jacob  Schenk  on  September  11,  1538.  Luther 
and  Jonas,  after  a  sermon  which  had  greatly  displeased  them, 
paid  him  a  visit.  They  found  him,  "  sad  to  relate,  impenitent 
and  unabashed,  rebellious,  ambitious,  and  perjurious."  Luther 
pointed  out  to  him  his  ignorance  ;  how  could  he,  unexperienced 
as  he  was,  and  understanding  neither  dialectics  nor  rhetoric, 
venture  thus  to  oppose  his  teachers  ?  Schenk  replied  :  "I  must 
do  so  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  Blood  and  His  dear  Passion  ;  my 
own  great  trouble  of  conscience  also  compels  me  to  it  "  (thus 
adducing  a  motive  similar  to  that  so  often  alleged  by  Luther  in  his 
own  case).  I  must  "  fear  God  more  than  all  my  preceptors  ;  for 
I  have  a  God  as  much  as  you."  Luther  replied  :  "  It  may  be  that 
you  understand  my  doctrine  perfectly,  but  you  ought  neverthe- 
less, for  the  honour  of  God,  to  honour  us  as  the  teachers  who  first 
instructed  you."  This  seems  to  have  made  no  impression  on 
Schenk.  Luther's  parting  shot  was  :  "If  you  are  torn  to  pieces, 
may  the  devil  lap  your  blood.  We  also  are  '  in  peril  from  false 
brethren.'  Poor  Freiberg  [the  scene  of  Schenk's  labours]  will 
•never  recover  from  this.  But  God,  the  Avenger,  will  destroy 
the  man  who  has  defiled  His  temple.  The  proverb  says  :  '  Where 
heart  and  mind  both  are  bad,  the  state  of  a  man  indeed  is  sad.'  " 

1  Lauterbach,  "  TagebucV  p.  143. 
III. — 2  D 


402  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

At  supper,  Schenk,  seated  at  table  with  Luther  and  Jonas,  began 
to  abuse  Luther  and  the  inhabitants  of  Freiberg  ;  after  saying 
much  that  was  scarcely  complimentary,  he  added  :  "  '  When  I  have 
made  the  Court  as  pious  as  you  have  made  the  world,  then  my 
work  will  be  finished.'  In  spite  of  all  this  impertinence  he  re- 
mained seated,  though  his  hypocritical  show  of  humility  revealed 
how  depraved  his  heart  really  was.  When  Luther  got  up  to  leave 
the  room  Schenk  attempted  to  start  the  quarrel  anew."1  Finally 
they  parted  unreconciled. 

Schenk  subsequently  led  a  wandering  existence,  ever 
under  suspicion  as  to  the  purity  of  his  faith.  In  1541  he 
was  at  Leipzig  and  in  1543  he  visited  Joachim,  Elector  of 
Brandenburg.  It  was  given  out  by  adversaries,  such  as 
Melanchthon  and  Alberus,  that  he  ultimately  committed 
suicide,  driven  thereto  by  melancholy  ;  the  statement  is, 
however,  not  otherwise  confirmed, 

Johann  Wildenauer  (or  Silvius),  the  theologian,  was  born 
at  Eger  in  Bohemia,  and  hence  was  generally  known  as 
Egranus.  This  priest,  who  was  a  man  of  talent  and  of 
Humanistic  culture,  and  an  enthusiastic  follower  of  Erasmus, 
had  been  won  over  to  the  new  teaching  in  the  very  beginning. 
After  having  been  preacher  at  the  Marienkirche  at  Zwickau 
until  Thomas  Munzer  made  any  further  stay  impossible, 
we  find  him  from  1521-23  and,  again,  from  1533-34, 
preacher  of  the  new  faith  at  Joachimstal,  where  he  was  one 
of  the  predecessors  of  Mathesius. 

Wildenauer  was  one  of  the  most  remarkable  and  inde- 
pendent characters  of  the  time,  but  an  "  extremely  restless 
spirit."2  Although  a  Lutheran,  he  openly  expressed  his 
dissatisfaction,  not  only  with  the  moral  conditions  under 
Lutheranism,  but  also  with  many  points  of  his  master's 
doctrine,  particularly  with  his  theory  that  faith  alone 
justifies,  and  that  man  cannot  co-operate  in  the  work  of  his 
salvation.  Luther  became  at  an  early  date  suspicious  and 
angry  concerning  him.  He  wrote  to  Joachimstal  "  to  warn 
the  people  against  the  dubious  doctrines  of  Egranus,"  as 
Mathesius  relates,  on  the  strength  of  copies  of  certain  letters 
he  had  seen.3  The  more  dutiful  Mathesius  speaks  of  his 
predecessor  as   "  a  Mameluke  and  an  ungrateful  pupil."4 

1  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  129. 

2  O.  Clemen,  "Johann  Sylvius  Egranus"  ("Mitt,  des  Altertums- 
vereins  fur  Zwickau  und  Umgegend,"  1899,  Hft.  6  and  7  ;  Sohderabd., 
1  and  2),  1,  p.  28.  3  "  Historien,"  p.  222.  4  Ibid.,  p.  79. 


EGRANUS  403 

His  fault  consisted  in  his  following  the  example  of  Erasmus, 
as  did  in  progress  of  time  so  many  other  admirers  of  the 
Dutch  scholar,  and  relinquishing  more  and  more  his  former 
good  opinion  of  Luther's  person  and  work ;  with  this  change 
his  own  sad  experiences  had  not  a  little  to  do.  To  the 
Catholic  Church,  which  had  excommunicated  him,  he 
apparently  never  returned.  When,  in  1534,  he  was  deprived 
of  his  post  at  Joachimstal,  he  complained  in  a  letter,  that 
he  had  been  "  driven  into  exile  and  outlawed  by  Papists  and 
Lutherans  alike."1 

In  that  same  year  he  published  at  Leipzig  a  work  entitled 
"  A  Christian  Instruction  on  the  righteousness  of  faith  and 
on  good  works,"2  which,  in  spite  of  its  bitterness,  contained 
many  home-truths.  There,  apart  from  what  he  says  on 
doctrinal  matters,  we  find  an  account  of  the  "  temptations 
and  trials  "  he  had  to  endure  for  having  ventured  to  teach 
that  "  good  works  and  a  Christian  life,  side  by  side  with 
faith,  are  useful  and  necessary  for  securing  eternal  life."3 

About  this  time  Luther  again  sent  forth  a  challenge  to 
Erasmus  and  to  all  Erasmians  generally  who  had  broken 
with  him,  Egranus  included. 

He  told  his  friends  that  now  his  business  was  to  "  purify  the 
Church  from  the  brood  of  Erasmus  "  ("  afcetibus  eius  ")  ;  he  was 
referring  particularly  to  Egranus,  also  to  Crotus  Rubeanus,  Wicel, 
(Ecolampadius,  and  Campanus.4  Erasmus  had  already 
"  seduced  "  Zwingli  and  now  he  had  also  "  converted  Egranus, 
who  believes  just  as  much  as  he,"  viz.  nothing.5 — Egranus  he 
calls  a  "  proud  donkey,"  who  teaches  that  Christ  must  not  be 
exalted  so  high,  having  learnt  this  from  Erasmus  ;6  "  this  proud 
spirit  declared  that  though  Christ  had  earned  it,  yet  we  must 
merit  it."7 — He  had  long  been  acquainted  with  this  false  spirit, 
so  he  wrote  in  1533  or  1534  to  a  Joachimstal  burgher  ;  he,  like 
other  sectarians,  was  full  of  "  devil's  venom."  "  Even  though  no 
syrup  or  purgative  be  given  them,  yet  they  cannot  but  expel  their 
poison  from  mouth  and  anus.  The  time  will  come  when  they  will 
be  unable  any  longer  to  pass  the  matter,  and  then  their  belly 
must  burst  like  that  of  Judas ;   for   they  will  not  be  able  to 

1  M.  J.  Weller,  "  Altes  aus  alien  Teilen  der  Gesch.,"  Chemnitz, 
1760  ff„  2,  p.  783.  Weller,  1,  p.  177,  gives  one  of  Egranus's  letters  of 
1523,  in  which  he  says  :  "  propter  Lutherum  neque  evangelium  neque 
Christum  .  .  .  nominare  tutum  est." 

2  Clemen,  ibid.,  2,  p.  11  f. 

3  Bl.  A.  3a.    Dollinger,  ibid.,  p.  135. 

4  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  488. 

5  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  343  (in  1544). 

6  Ibid.,  p.  90.  7  Ibid.,  p.  207. 


404  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

retain  what  they  have  stolen  and  devoured  of  [the  doctrine  of] 
Christ."1 

That  Egranus  finally  drank  himself  to  death  with  Malmsey 
"is  a  despicable  calumny,  which  can  be  traced  back  to 
Mathesius."2  In  the  sixteenth-century  controversies  it  was  the 
usual  thing  on  either  side  to  calumniate  opponents  and  to  make 
them  die  the  worst  death  conceivable,3  and  it  would  appear,  that, 
in  the  case  of  Egranus,  at  a  very  early  date  unfavourable  reports 
were  circulated  concerning  his  manner  of  death.  His  lamentable 
end  ("  miser  e  periit"),  Luther  likens  to  that  of  Zwingli,  struck 
down  in  the  battle  of  Cappel  by  a  divine  judgment.4  His  death 
occurred  in  1535. 

In  the  "  Christian  Instruction,"  referred  to  above,  Egranus 
had  written  :  "  The  new  prophets  can  only  tell  us  that  we  are 
freed  from  sin  by  Christ  ;  what  He  commanded  or  forbade  in  the 
Gospel  that  they  pass  over  as  were  it  not  in  the  Gospel  at  all." 
"If  we  simply  say  :  Christ  has  done  everything  and  what  we  do 
is  of  no  account,  then  we  are  making  too  much  of  Christ's  share, 
for  we  also  must  do  something  to  secure  our  salvation.  By  such 
words  Christ  is  made  a  cloak  for  our  sins,  and,  as  is  actually  now 
the  case,  all  seek  to  conceal  and  excuse  their  wickedness  and 
viciousness  under  the  mantle  of  Christ's  merits." 

"  If  such  faith  without  works  continues  to  be  preached  much 
longer,  the  Christian  religion  will  fall  into  ruins  and  come  to  a 
lamentable  end,  and  the  place  where  this  faith  without  works  is 
taught  will  become  a  Sodom  and  Gomorrha."5 


4.   Bugenhagen,  Jonas  and  others 

Disagreements  such  as  these  never  arose  to  mar  the 
relations  between  Luther  and  some  of  his  other  more 
intimate  co-workers,  for  instance,  his  friendship  with 
Bugenhagen  and  Jonas,  who  have  been  so  frequently 
alluded  to  already.  He  was  always  ready  to  acknowledge 
in  the  warmest  manner  the  great  services  they  rendered 
him  in  the  defence  and  spread  of  his  teaching,  and  to  support 
them  when  they  stood  in  need  of  his  assistance.  He  was 
never  stingy  in  his  bestowal  of  praise,  narrow-minded  or 
jealous,  in  his  acknowledgement  of  the  merits  of  friendly 
fellow-preachers,  or  of  those  writers  who  held  Lutheran 
views. 

1  To  Wolfgang  Wiebel,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  54,  p.  208  ("  Brief  - 
wechsel,"  9,  p.  367). 

2  Clemen,  ibid.,  p.  16,  with  a  reference  to  Loesche's  "  Leben  des 
Mathesius,"  1,  1895,  p.  88. 

3  Plentiful  proofs  in  N.  Paulus,  "  Luthers  Lebensende,"  p.  1  ff. 

4  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  136. 

5  For  these  passages  and  some  others,  see  Dollinger,  ibid.,  p.  136  f. 
Cp.  Clemen,  ibid.,  2,  p.  14. 


AMSDORF,   BRENZ,   BUGENHAGEN      405 

Nicholas  von  Amsdorf,  who  introduced  the  new  faith 
into  Magdeburg  in  1524  and  there  became  Superintendent, 
he  praises  for  the  firmness  with  which  he  confessed  the  faith 
and  for  his  fearless  conduct  generally.  In  Disputations  he 
was  wont  to  go  straight  to  the  heart  of  the  matter  like  the 
"  born  theologian  "  he  was  ;  at  Schmalkalden,  when  preach- 
ing before  the  Princes  and  magnates,  he  had  not  shrunk 
from  declaring  that  our  Evangel  was  intended  for  the  weak 
and  oppressed  and  for  those  who  feel  themselves  sinners, 
though  he  could  not  discern  any  such  in  the  audience.1 

Johann  Brenz,  preacher  in  Schwabisch-Hall  since  1522, 
and  one  of  the  founders  of  the  new  church  system  in  Suabia, 
was  greatly  lauded  by  Luther  for  his  exegetical  abilities. 
"  He  is  a  learned  and  reliable  man.  Amongst  all  the 
theologians  of  our  day  there  is  not  one  who  knows  how  to 
interpret  and  handle  Holy  Scripture  like  Brenz.  When  I 
gaze  in  admiration  at  his  spirit  I  almost  despair  of  my  own 
powers.  Certainly  none  of  our  people  can  do  what  he  has 
done  in  his  exposition  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  At  times, 
it  is  true,  he  is  carried  away  by  his  own  ideas,  yet  he  sticks 
to  the  point  and  speaks  conformably  to  the  simplicity  of 
God's  Word."2 

Next  to  Melanchthon,  however,  the  friend  whom  Luther 
praised  most  highly  asa"  thoroughly  learned  and  most  able 
man,"  was  Johann  Bugenhagen.  "  He  has,  under  most 
trying  circumstances,  been  of  service  to  many  of  the 
Churches."3 

In  his  Preface  to  Bugenhagen's  Latin  Commentary  on  the 
Psalms — a  work  which,  even  in  the  opinion  of  Protestant 
theologians,  "leaves  much  to  be  desired"4  from  the  "point  of 
view  of  learning,"  and  which  in  reality  is  merely  a  sort  of 
polemical  work  of  edification,  written  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
new  faith — Luther  declared,  that  the  spirit  of  Christ  had  at 
length  unlocked  the  Psalter  through  Bugenhagen  ;  every  teacher 
must  admit  that  now  "  the  spirit  was  revealing  secrets  hidden 

1  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  267. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  266  seq.  3  Ibid.,  p.  267. 

4  L.  Diestel.  Cp.  "  Luthers  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  2,  where 
Diestel  says  :  "  His  knowledge  of  Hebrew  is  meagre  "  ;  the  literal 
sense  is  made  subservient  to  the  "  Christian  and  theological  bias." 
H.  Hering's  opinion  ("  Doctor  Pomeranus,"  Leipzig,  1888)  is  :  In 
Bugenhagen's  Commentary  "  the  Psalmist's  states  of  soul  are  made  to 
represent  a  picture  of  the  Reformation  "  ;  the  work  is  "  sensibly 
clearer  and  more  prosaic  "  than  Luther's  unfinished  exposition  of  the 
Psalms. 


406  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

for  ages."  "  I  venture  to  assert  that  the  first  person  on  earth 
to  give  an  explanation  of  the  Book  of  Psalms  is  Pomeranus. 
Almost  all  earlier  writers  have  introduced  their  own  views  into 
the  book,  but  here  the  judgment  of  the  spirit  will  teach  you 
wondrous  things."1 

Yet  at  the  very  outset,  in  the  first  verse  of  the  Psalms,  instead 
of  a  learned  commentary,  we  find  Bugenhagen  expounding  the 
new  belief,  and  attacking  the  alleged  self-righteousness  of 
Catholicism,  termed  by  him  the  "  cathedra  pestilential  "  ;  he  even 
relates  at  length  his  conversion  to  Lutheranism,  which  had  given 
scandal  "  to  those  not  yet  enlightened  by  the  sun  of  the  Evangel." 2 
They  were  no  longer  to  wait  for  the  completion  of  his  own 
Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  Luther  concludes,  since  now — in 
place  of  poor  Luther — David,  Isaias,  Paul,  and  John  were  them- 
selves speaking  to  the  reader. 

"He  had  no  clear  perception  of  the  defects  of  Bugenhagen's 
exegetical  method,"  remarks  O.  Albrecht,  the  editor  of  the  above 
Preface  in  the  Weimar  edition  of  Luther's  works.3  The  explana- 
tion of  this  "  uncalled-for  praise,"  as  Albrecht  terms  it,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  feeling  expressed  by  Luther  in  the  first  sentence  of 
the  Preface :  At  the  present  time  God  had  caused  His  Word  to 
shine  like  crystal,  whereas  of  yore  there  prevailed  only  chill  and 
dismal  mists. 

The  truth  is  that  few  of  Luther's  assistants  promoted  his 
cause  with  such  devotion  and  determination  combined  as 
did  Pomeranus,  who,  for  all  his  zeal,  was  both  practical 
and  sober  in  his  ways.  Such  were  his  achievements  for  the 
cause,  that  Luther  greets  him  in  the  superscription  of  a 
letter  as  "  Bishop  of  the  Church  of  Wittenberg,  Legate  of 
Christ's  face  and  heart  to  Denmark,  my  brother  and  my 
master."  He  thus  explains  the  words  "  legatus  a  facie  et  a 
corde  "  :  "  the  Pope  boasts  of  his  '  legati  a  latere,'  I  boast  of 
my  pious  preachers  4  a  facie  et  a  corde?  "4  Luther  was  in 
the  habit  of  putting  Bugenhagen  on  the  same  footing  with 
himself  and  Melanchthon  :  Luther,  Philip,  and  Pomeranus 
will  support  the  Evangel  as  long  as  they  are  there,  he  says, 
but  after  this  there  will  come  a  fall  ("  fiet  lapsus  ").5  Let 
those  braggarts  who  pretend  they  know  better  "  come  to 
me,  to  Philip,  and  to  Pomeranus  .  .  .  then  they  will  be 
nicely    confounded."6      Kostlin    is,    however,    rightly    of 

1  Reprint  of  Luther's  Praefatio  in  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  15,  p.  8  ; 
"  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  7,  p.  502  seq. 

2  First  Wittenberg  ed.,  1524,  at  the  commencement  (Miinchener 
Staatsbibl.).  3  p.  2. 

4  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  3,  according  to  which  the  letter, 
which  has  not  been  preserved,  must  have  been  dated  January  2,  1538 
(Mo  die). 

5  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  416,  of  1537.  6  Ibid.,  p.  412. 


BUGENHAGEN  407 

opinion  that,  as  compared  with  Luther  and  Melanchthon, 
Bugenhagen  was  "  merely  a  subordinate,  though  endowed 
by  nature  with  considerable  powers  of  mind  and  body."1 
Yet  the  sun  of  Luther's  favour  shone  upon  him.  Agricola, 
"  the  poor  fellow,"  says  Luther,  "  looks  down  on  Pomeranus, 
but  the  latter  is  a  great  theologian  and  has  plenty  nerve  for 
his  work  ('  multum  habet  nervorum  ') ;  Agricola,  of  course, 
would  make  himself  out  to  be  more  learned  than  Master  Philip 
or  I."2  "  Pomeranus  is  a  splendid  professor  "  ;  "  his  sermons 
are  full  of  wealth."3  The  truth  is  that  the  "wealth,"  or  rather 
expansiveness,  of  his  discourses  was  so  great  that  Luther  had 
to  reprove  him  severely  for  the  length  of  his  sermons. 

Johann  Bugenhagen,  called  Pommer  or  Pomeranus 
because  he  hailed  from  Wollin  in  Pomerania,  after  two  years 
spent  at  the  University  of  Greifswald  and  a  further  course 
devoted  mainly  to  Humanist  studies,  was  ordained  priest 
by  the  Bishop  of  Cammin,  when  "  as  yet  he  probably  had 
not  begun  to  study  theology."4  At  the  College  at  Treptow 
he  earned  respect  as  professor  of  Humanism  and  as  Rector  ; 
in  his  desire  to  further  the  better  theology  advocated  by 
Erasmus  he  took  to  studying  the  Bible,  and,  on  Luther's 
appearance,  was  soon  won  over  to  the  cause,  though  on  first 
reading  Luther's  work  "  On  the  Babylonish  Captivity,"  he 
"  had  been  repelled  by  the  palpable  heresies  "  it  contained. 
He  settled  at  Wittenberg,  delivered  private  lectures  on  the 
Psalms,  and  married,  on  October  13,  1522,  a  servant-maid 
of  Hieronymus  Schurf,  the  lawyer  ;  in  the  following  year  he 
was  inducted  at  the  Schlosskirche  as  parish-priest  of 
Wittenberg  by  the  magistrates,  acting  together  with  Luther. 
In  defiance  of  right  and  justice  and  of  the  murmurs  raised, 
Luther,  from  the  pulpit,  proclaimed  him  pastor,  thus  over- 
ruling the  objections  of  the  Chapter  ;  his  choice  by  the 
board  of  magistrates  "  and  by  the  congregation  agreeably 
with  the  evangelical  teaching  of  Paul,"  Luther  held  to  be 
quite  sufficient.5 

As  pastor,  Bugenhagen  displayed  great  energy  not  merely 
in  preaching  to  and  instructing  the  people,  but  in  furthering 
in  every  way  the  spread  of  Lutheranism  in  the  civic  and 

1  "  Allg.  Deutsche  Biographie,"  Art.  "  Bugenhagen." 

2  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  93  (May,  1540).  3  Ibid.,  p.  381. 

4  H.  Kawerau,  "  RE.  fur  prot.  Theol.,"  Art.  "  Bugenhagen." 

5  See  also  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  528,  where  the  "  contravention 
of  the  rights  of  the  Chapter  "  is  admitted. 


408  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

social  life  of  the  Electorate.  His  practical  talents  made  him 
eventually  the  apostle  of  the  new  Church,  even  beyond  the 
confines  of  Saxony.  He  successively  introduced  or  organised 
it  in  Brunswick,  Hamburg,  Lubeck,  and  in  Pomerania,  his 
own  country  ;  then  in  Denmark,  from  1537-39,  where  he 
fixed  his  residence  at  Copenhagen.  Two  main  features  are 
apparent  in  all  he  did  ;  everywhere  the  new  Churches  were 
established  on  a  strictly  civil  basis,  and,  so  far  as  the  new 
religion  allowed  of  it,  the  old  Catholic  forms  were  retained. 
In  his  indefatigable  and  arduous  undertakings  Bugenhagen 
made  himself  one  with  Luther,  and  became,  so  to  speak, 
a  replica  of  his  master.  In  his  scrupulous  observance 
of  Luther's  doctrine  he  was  to  be  outdone  by  none,  save 
possibly  by  Amsdorf  ;  in  rudeness  and  want  of  considera- 
tion where  the  new  Evangel  was  concerned,  and  in  his  whole 
way  of  thinking,  he  stood  nearest  to  Luther,  the  only 
difference  being,  that,  in  his  discourses  and  writings  we 
miss  Luther's  imagination  and  feeling.  In  the  literary  field, 
in  addition  to  the  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  and  other 
similar  writings,  he  distinguished  himself  by  a  work  in 
vindication  of  the  new  preaching,  addressed  to  the  city  of 
Hamburg  and  entitled  :  "  Von  dem  Christen-loven  und  den 
rechten  guden  Werken  "  (1526),  also  by  the  share  he  took, 
with  Melanchthon  and  Cruciger,  in  Luther's  German 
translation  of  the  Bible,  and  his  labours  in  connection  with 
the  Low-Saxon  version.  Most  important  of  all,  however, 
were  his  Church-constitutions.  Bugenhagen  died  at  Witten- 
berg on  April  20,  1558,  after  having  already  lost  his  sight — 
broken  down  by  the  bitter  trials  which  had  come  on  him 
subsequent  to  Luther's  death. 

Such  was  Luther's  confidence  in  his  friend  and  appreciation  of 
his  power,  that,  during  Bugenhagen's  prolonged  absence,  we 
often  find  Luther  expressing  his  desire  to  see  him  again  by  his 
side  and  in  charge  of  the  Wittenberg  pastorate.  "  Your  absence," 
so  in  1531  he  wrote  to  him  at  Lubeck,  "  is  greatly  felt  by  us.  I 
am  overburdened  with  work  and  my  health  is  not  good.  I  am 
neglecting  the  Church-accounts,  and  the  shepherd  should  be  here. 
I  cannot  attend  to  it.  The  world  remains  the  world  and  the 
devil  is  its  God.  .  .  .  Since  the  world  refuses  to  allow  itself  to  be 
saved,  let  it  perish.  Greet  your  Eve  and  Sara  in  my  name  and 
that  of  my  wife  and  give  greetings  to  all  our  friends."1 

When  Bugenhagen  was  at  Wittenberg  Luther  loved  to  open 
to  him  the  secret  recesses  of  his  heart,  especially  when  suffering 

1  To  Bugenhagen,  November  24,  1531,  "  Brief wechsel,"  9,  p.  127. 


BUGENHAGEN  409 

from  "  temptations."  Frequently  he  even  aroused  in  Bugenhagen  a 
sort  of  echo  of  his  own  feelings,  which  shows  us  how  close  a  tie 
existed  between  them,  and  gives  us  an  idea  of  the  kind  of  sugges- 
tion Luther  was  wont  to  exercise  over  those  who  surrendered 
themselves  to  his  influence. 

Bugenhagen,  like  Luther,  was  not  conscious  of  any  good-will 
or  merit  of  his  own,  but — apart  from  the  merits  of  Christ  with 
which  we  are  bedecked — merely  of  the  oppression  arising  from 
his  "  great  weakness  "  and  "  secret  idolatry  against  the  first 
Table  of  the  Law  of  Moses."  Hence,  when  Luther,  in  June,  1540, 
complained  that  Agricola  was  after  some  righteousness  of  his 
own,  whereas  he  (Luther)  could  find  nothing  of  the  sort  in  him- 
self, Bugenhagen  at  once  chimed  in  with  the  assurance  that  he 
was  no  less  unable  to  discover  any  such  thing  in  himself.1 

Luther's  anger  against  the  fanatics  and  Sacramentarians  was 
imbibed  by  Bugenhagen.  To  him  and  his  other  Table-guests 
Luther  complained  that  his  adversaries,  Carlstadt,  Grickel  and 
Jeckel  (i.e.  Agricola  and  Jacob  Schenk),  were  ignorant  braggarts  ; 
they  accuse  us  of  want  of  charity  because  we  will  not  allow 
them  to  have  their  own  way,  though  we  read  in  Paul  :  "A  man 
that  is  a  heretic  avoid."  Bugenhagen  was  at  once  ready  to 
propose  a  drastic  remedy.  "  Doctor,  we  should  do  what  is 
commanded  in  Deuteronomy  [xiii.  5  ff.],  where  Moses  says  they 
should  be  put  to  death."  Whereupon  Luther  replied  :  "  Quite 
so,  and  the  reason  is  given  in  the  same  text  :  It  is  better  to 
make  away  with  a  man  than  with  God."2  Bugenhagen  was 
also  the  first  to  take  up  his  pen  in  Luther's  defence3  when  the 
Swiss  heresy  concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  Supper  began  to 
be  noised  abroad  owing  to  a  letter  of  Zwingli's  to  Alber  at  Reut- 
lingen,  and  to  his  book,  "  Commentarius  de  vera  et  falsa  religione," 
of  March,  1525.     When  Melanchthon  showed  signs  of  inclining 

1  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  147  f.     See  above,  p.  204. 

2  Mathesius,  ibid.,  p.  274. 

3  In  the  work  called  "  Contra  novum  error  em  de  sacramento  corporis 
et  sanguinis  Iesu  Christi "  (end  of  August,  1525).  See  "  Luthers 
Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  19,  p.  447.  Zwingli  replied  to  Bugenhagen  in  a 
writing  of  October,  1525.  In  the  "  Klare  Underrichtung  vom  Nachtmal 
Christi,"  which  Zwingli  published  in  February,  1526,  in  vindication  of 
his  denial  of  the  Real  Presence,  he,  as  in  his  previous  writings,  avoided 
naming  Luther.  Since  at  Basle  in  September,  1525,  GEcolampadius 
also  advocated  the  figurative  sense  of  the  words  of  institution  in  his 
writing,  "  De  genuina  verborum  Domini  cxpositione,"  and  Caspar 
Schwenckfeld  and  Valentine  Krautwald  sought  to  propagate  the  same 
in  Silesia,  while  Carlstadt  was  winning  adherents  by  his  attacks  upon 
the  Sacrament,  Bugenhagen's  work  was  all  the  more  timely.  Johann 
Brenz  espoused  his  cause,  in  opposition  to  the  figurative  interpretation, 
in  his  "  Syngramma  "  of  October,  1525,  and  so  did  Jacob  Strauss. 
The  "  Sacramentarian  "  movement  had  grown  before  Luther  followed 
up  his  vigorous  refutation  of  Carlstadt's  denial  of  the  Sacrament  (in  his 
book  "  Widder  die  hymelischen  Propheten,"  and  in  his  sermon  of 
1526  on  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  against  the 
fanatics)  by  his  polemical  Tractate  against  Zwingli  and  (Ecolampadius 
on  the  words  of  Christ,  "  This  is  My  Body  "  (1527).    See  above,  p.  379  f . 


410         LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

towards  the  Zwinglian  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament,  there  was  soon 
a  rumour  at  Wittenberg  that  "  Melanchthon  and  Pomeranus 
have  fallen  out  badly  on  the  Article  concerning  the  Supper,"  and 
an  apprehension  of  "  dreadful  dissensions  amongst  the  foremost 
theologians."1 

In  1532  Luther  declared  :  There  must  be  some  ready  to  show 
a  "  brave  front  "  to  the  devil  ;  "  there  must  be  some  in  the 
Church  as  ready  to  slap  Satan,  as  we  three  [Luther,  Melanchthon, 
and  Bugenhagen]  ;  but  not  all  are  able  or  willing  to  endure 
this."2  And  on  another  occasion  he  described,  in  Bugenhagen's 
presence,  how  he  was  wont  cynically  to  mock  the  devil  when  "  he 
comes  by  night  to  worry  me  .  .  .  by  bringing  up  my  sins  "  ; 
Satan  did  not,  however,  torment  him  about  his  really  grave  sins, 
such  as  his  "  celebration  of  Mass  and  provocation  of  God  [in  the 
religious  life]."  "  May  God  preserve  me  from  that  !  For  were 
I  to  realise  keenly  how  great  these  sins  were,  the  horror  of  it 
would  kill  me  !  "  It  was  on  the  occasion  of  this  fantastic  out- 
burst, employed  by  Luther  to  quiet  his  conscience,  that  Bugen- 
hagen, not  to  be  outdone  in  coarseness,  uttered  the  words  already 
recorded  (above,  p.  178). 3 

The  spiritual  kinship  between  Luther  and  Bugenhagen  pro- 
duced in  the  latter  a  similar  liking  for  coarse  language.  He  was 
much  addicted  to  the  use  of  strong  expressions,  witness,  for 
instance,  his  saying  that  friars  wore  ropes  around  their  waists 
that  we  might  have  wherewith  to  hang  them.4 

In  his  most  severe  temptations  Luther  found  consolation  in 
the  words  of  comfort  spoken  by  the  pastor  of  Wittenberg,  and  he 
assures  us  he  was  often  refreshed  by  such  exhortations,  the 
memory  of  which  he  was  slow  to  lose.5  Bugenhagen  assisted  him 
during  his  severe  illness  in  1527,  and  again  in  the  other  attack 
some  ten  years  later.  On  the  latter  occasion  he  summoned  his 
friend  to  Gotha,  made  his  confession  to  him,  so  he  says,  and 
commended  the  "  Church  and  his  family  "  to  his  care.6  When 
separated  they  were  in  the  habit  of  begging  each  other's  prayers. 

In  his  letters  Bugenhagen  recounts  to  Luther  the  success  of 
his  labours,  in  order  to  afford  him  pleasure,  giving  due  thanks  to 
God.  Somewhat  strange  is  the  account  he  sent  Luther  of  an 
encounter  he  had  at  Liibeck  with  a  girl  supposed  to  be  pos- 
sessed by  the  devil  ;  through  her  lips  the  devil  had  given 
testimony  to  him  just  as  at  Ephesus,  so  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

1  Spengler  to  Veit  Dietrich,  in  Mayer's  "  Spengleriana,"  p.  153. 
Dollinger,  "  Die  Reformation,"  2,  p.  141. 

2  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  25.  3  Ibid.,  p.  89. 

4  E.  Horigk,  "  Joh.  Bugenhagen  und  die  Protestantisierung 
Pommerns,"  Mainz,  1895,  p.  19  f. 

5  "Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  2,  p.  299.  Cp.  p.  220.  Cp.  Schlagin- 
haufen, "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  10,  where  Luther  relates  how  Bugen- 
hagen calmed  .him  when  the  devil  almost  choked  him  with  the 
passage  1  Timothy  v.  11,  and  drove  him  "  from  gratia  in  disputationem 
legis." 

6  Cp.  Mathesius,  "  Tisehreden,"  p.  115. 


BUGENHAGEN  411 

tell  us,  he  had  borne  witness  to  the  power  of  Jesus  and  Paul.1 
Hardly  had  he  come  to  the  town  and  visited  the  girl  than  the 
devil,  speaking  through  her,  called  him  by  name  (we  must  not 
forget  that  her  parents,  at  least,  were  acquainted  with  Bugen- 
hagen)  and  declared  his  coming  to  Liibeck  to  be  quite  uncalled 
for.  That,  in  spite  of  his  prayers  and  tears,  he  was  unable  to 
expel  the  devil,  he  himself  admits. 2  The  account  of  the  incident, 
written  down  by  him  soon  after  his  arrival  at  Liibeck,  and  before 
he  had  properly  inquired  into  the  case,  was  soon  published  under 
a  curious  title. 3  So  much  did  Luther  think  of  the  encounter  with 
this  hysterical  or  mentally  deranged  girl,4  that  he  wrote  :  "  Satan 
is  giving  Pomeranus  a  great  deal  to  do  at  Liibeck  with  a  maid 
who  is  possessed.  The  cunning  demon  is  planning  marvels." 
This,  when  forwarding  from  the  Coburg  to  Wenceslaus  Link, 
preacher  at  Nuremberg,  the  account  he  had  received. 5  In  1536 
Bugenhagen  related  at  table,  during  the  conciliation  meetings 
held  at  Wittenberg,  the  encounters  he  had  had  in  Liibeck  and 
Brunswick  with  "delivered  demoniacs."6 

Luther  on  his  side  gave  his  friend,  when  busy  abroad,  frequent 
tidings  of  the  state  of  things  at  Wittenberg.  In  1537  he  sent  to 
him,  at  Copenhagen,  an  account  of  a  nasty  trick  played  by  Paul 
Heintz,  a  professor  at  the  University  of  Wittenberg,  "  greatly 
to  the  detriment  of  the  town  and  University."  The  latter,  in 
order  to  possess  himself  of  an  inheritance,  had  given  out  that  a 
youthful  stepson  of  his  was  dead,  and  had  caused  a  dog  to  be 
solemnly  buried  in  his  place  with  all  the  usual  rites.  "  The 
Master's  drama  makes  me  almost  burst  with  rage."  If  these 
lawyers  (who  in  Luther's  opinion  treated  the  case  too  leniently) 
"  look  upon  the  disgrace  to  our  Church  as  a  small  matter,"  he 
writes,  to  Bugenhagen,  "  I  will  show  them  a  bit  of  the  true 
Luther  ('  ero,  Deo  volente,  Lutherus  in  hac  causa')."7  He  did 
actually  write  a  furious  letter  to  the  Elector  to  secure  the 
severe  punishment  of  the  offender,  who  has  caused  us  "to  be 
jeered  at  everywhere  as  dogs'  undertakers  "  ;    the  lawyers,  who 

1  Bugenhagen  to  Luther,  Jonas  and  Melanchthon  (beginning  of 
November,  1530),  "  Luthers  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  304  ff.  :  "  The  words 
[of  the  devil]  Acts  xxix.  [15]  came  to  my  mind  :  '  Jesus  I  know  and  Paul 
I  know,'  etc.  He  has  often  troubled  me  ...  I  have  not  yet  for- 
gotten what  he  sought  to  do  through  the  Sacramentarians  of  Silesia 
(see  p.  409,  n.  3).  In  the  matter  of  other  sins  he  may  have  seemed  to 
triumph  over  me,  but,  thanks  be  to  Christ,  he  may  indeed  have  come 
to  me,  but  has  not  been  able  to  remain.  I  again  exhort  you  herewith 
that  you  pray  for  me,"  etc.  2  In  the  letter,  p.  307. 

3  "  Zwo  wunderbarliche  Hystorien  zu  Bestettigung  der  Lere  des 
Evangelii,  Johann  Pomer,  Philipp  Melanchthon."  According  to 
Enders,  8,  p.  304,  probably  published  at  Nuremberg  (by  Luther's 
friend,  W.  Link)  in  1530  or  the  beginning  of  1531. 

4  Cp.  B.  Heyne,  "  Uber  Besessenheitswahn  bei  geistigen  Erkran- 
kungszustanden,"  Paderborn,  1904,  p.  52  ff. 

5  To  Wenceslaus  Link,  December,  1530,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  8,  p.  326. 

6  Wolfgang  Musculus  ("Itinerar.,"  May  25,  1536),  in  Kolde,  "  Ana- 
lecta  Lutherana,"  p.  220. 

7  On  July  5,  1537,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  p.  245. 


412  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

in  the  Pope's  or  the  devil's  name  had  shown  themselves  lenient, 
he  would  denounce  from  the  pulpit.1  To  Magister  Johann  Saxo, 
who  in  turn  related  it  to  Bugenhagen,  he  declared,  that,  should 
the  burial  of  the  dog  with  all  the  rites  of  the  Church  be  proved 
to  have  taken  place,  then  "  Paul  would  pay  for  it  with  his  neck  " 
on  account  of  the  mockery  of  religion  involved.2  Even  later 
Luther  declared  :  "I  should  have  liked  to  have  written  his  death- 
sentence  "  ;  he  added,  however,  that  the  culprit  had  really 
"  buried  the  dog  in  order  to  drive  away  the  plague."3 

Possessed,  like  Luther,  by  a  positive  craze  for  seeing  diabolical 
intervention  everywhere,  Bugenhagen  shared  his  superstitions 
to  the  full.  He  it  was  who  knew  how  to  expel  the  devil  from  the 
churn  by  what  Luther  termed  the  "  best  "  method,  which 
certainly  was  the  coarsest  imaginable.4  When,  in  December, 
1536.  a  storm  broke  over  Wittenberg  he  vied  with  Luther  in 
declaring,  that  since  it  was  quite  out  of  the  order  of  nature,  it 
must  be  altogether  satanic  "  ("  plane  sathanicum.").5 

He  discerned  the  work  of  the  devil  just  as  clearly  in  the  per- 
sistence of  Catholicism  and  its  resistance  to  Lutheranism. 
"  Dear  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  he  writes,  "  arise  with  Thy  Holy 
Angels  and  thrust  down  into  the  abyss  of  hell  the  diabolical 
murder  and  blasphemy  of  Antichrist."6  Elsewhere  he  prays  in 
similar  fashion,  "  that  God  would  put  to  shame  the  devil's 
doctrines  and  idolatries  of  the  Pope  and  save  poor  people  from 
the  errors  of  Antichrist."7  Among  all  the  qualities  he  had 
acquired  from  Luther,  his  patron  and  model,  this  hatred — which 
the  Sectarians  of  the  new  faith  who  differed  from  Luther  were 
also  made  to  feel — is  perhaps  the  most  striking.  In  his  case, 
however,  fanaticism  was  tempered  with  greater  coolness  and 
calculation.  For  calm  obstinacy  Bugenhagen  in  many  ways 
recalls  Calvin. 

When  Superintendent  of  the  Saxon  Electorate  he  introduced 
into  the  Litanies  a  new  petition  :  "  From  the  blasphemy,  cruel 
murder  and  uncleanness  of  Thine  enemies  the  Turk  and  the 
Pope,  graciously  deliver  us."8 

With  delight  he  was  able  to  write  to  Luther  from  Denmark,9 
that  the  Mass  was  forbidden  throughout  the  country  and  that 
the  mendicant  Friars  had  been  driven  over  the  borders  as 
"  sedition-mongers  "  and  "  blasphemers  "  because  they  refused 

1  July  26,  1537,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  55,  p.  183  ("  Brief wechsel,"  11, 
p.  250). 

2  Saxo  to  Bugenhagen,  July  5,  1537,  "  Brief  wechsel  Bugenhagens," 
ed.  Vogt,  p.  151  :   "  actum  esse  de  Pauli  collo,"  etc. 

3  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  181. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  380.    See  above,  p.  230.  5  Ibid.,  p.  385. 

6  Voigt,  "  Herzog  Albrecht,"  in  Raumer,  "  Hist.  Taschenbuch,"  2, 
p.  314.    Dollinger,  "  Die  Reformation,"  2,  p.  142. 

7  Bugenhagen,  "  Wahrhaftige  Historie,"  Wittenberg,  1547,  Con- 
clusion.    P.  Knittel  in  "  KL."2,  Art.  "  Bugenhagen." 

8  Dollinger,  ibid.,  p.  142. 

9  On  February  4,  1538,  from  Copenhagen,  "Luthers  Brief  wechsel," 
11,  p.  329. 


JUSTUS   JONAS  413 

to  accept  the  King's  offers  ("  some  of  them  were  hanged  ").x 
The  Canons  had  everywhere  been  ordered  to  attend  the  Lutheran 
Communion  on  festivals  ;  the  four  thousand  parishes  had  now 
to  be  preserved  in  the  new  faith  which  had  dawned  upon  the 
land.  Bugenhagen,  on  August  12,  1537,  a  few  weeks  after  his 
arrival,  vested  in  alb  and  cope,  and  with  great  ecclesiastical 
pomp,  had  placed  the  crown  on  the  head  of  King  Christian  III. 
who  had  already  given  the  Catholics  a  foretaste  of  what  was  to 
come  and  had  caused  all  the  bishops  to  be  imprisoned. 

"  All  proceeds  merrily,"  Luther  told  Bucer  on  December  6, 
"  God  is  working  through  Pomeranus  ;  he  crowned  the  King 
and  Queen  like  a  true  bishop.  He  has  given  a  new  span  of  life  to 
the  University  [of  Copenhagen]."2  Bugenhagen  was  inexorable 
in  his  extirpation  of  the  worship  of  "  Antichrist  "  in  Denmark, 
even  down  to  the  smallest  details.  To  the  King,  concerning  a 
statue  of  Pope  St.  Lucius  in  the  Cathedral  Church  at  Roskilde, 
he  wrote,  that  this  must  be  removed  ;  it  was  an  exact  representa- 
tion of  the  Pauline  prophecy  concerning  Antichrist  ;  the  sword, 
which  the  Pope  carried  in  his  hand  as  the  symbol  of  his  death, 
Bugenhagen  regarded  as  emblematic  of  the  cruelty  of  the  Popes, 
who  now  preferred  to  cut  off  the  heads  of  others  and  to  arrogate 
to  themselves  authority  over  all  kings  and  rulers  ;  if  a  true  like- 
ness of  the  Pope  was  really  wanted,  then  he  would  have  to  be 
represented  as  a  devil  with  claws  and  a  fiendish  countenance, 
and  be  decked  out  in  a  golden  mantle,  a  staff,  a  sword  and  three 
crowns  ;  from  such  a  book  the  laity  would  be  able  to  read  the 
truth.3 

Justus  Jonas,  who,  of  all  his  acquaintances,  remained 
longest  with  Luther  at  Wittenberg,  like  Bugenhagen,  be- 
stowed upon  the  master  his  enduring  veneration  and  friend- 
ship. His  numerous  translations  of  Luther's  works  are  in 
themselves  a  proof  of  his  warm  attachment  to  his  ideas  and 
of  his  rare  affinity  to  him.  He,  next  to  Melanchthon  and 
Bugenhagen,  was  the  clearest-headed  and  most  active 
assistant  in  the  affairs  of  Wittenberg,  and  his  name  fre- 
quently appears,  together  with  those  of  Luther  and  the  two 
other  intimates,  among  the  signatures  appended  to  memo- 
randa dealing  with  matters  ecclesiastical. 

To  the  close  relationship  between  Luther  and  Jonas  many 

1  The  Superintendent  of  Zealand,  Peter  Palladius,  who  had  betaken 
himself  to  Denmark  with  Bugenhagen  from  Wittenberg,  writes  : 
"  The  thieves  [monks]  have  now  been  driven  out  of  the  land,  and  some 
of  them  hanged."  L.  Schmitt,  "  Der  Karmeliter  Paulus  Helia,  Vor- 
kampferder  kathol.  Kirche  gegen  die  sog.  Reformation  in  Danemark," 
Freiburg,  1893,  p.  160  f.  N.  Paulus,  "  Protestantismus  und  Toleranz," 
p.  19. 

V' Brief wechsel,"  11,  p.  300  f. 
B    3  On  November  21,  1537,  "  Briefwechsel  Bugenhagens,"  p.  162  ff. 
Horigk,  loc.  cit.,  p.  35  i. 


414  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

interesting    details    preserved    in    the    records    remain    to 
attest. 

Jonas  once  dubbed  Luther  a  Demosthenes  of  rhetoric.1  Luther 
in  his  turn  praised  Jonas  not  merely  for  his  translations,  but  also 
for  his  sermons  ;  he  had  all  the  gifts  of  a  good  orator,  "  save 
that  he  cleared  his  throat  too  often."2  Yet  he  also  accuses  him 
of  conceit  for  declaring  that  "  he  knew  all  that  was  contained  in 
Holy  Scripture  "  and  also  for  his  annoyance  and  surprise  at  the 
doubts  raised  concerning  the  above  assertion.3 

On  the  other  hand,  the  bitter  hostility  displayed  by  Jonas 
towards  all  Luther's  enemies,  pleased  the  latter.  Jonas,  taking 
up  the  thread  of  the  conversation,  remarked  on  one  occasion  to 
the  younger  guests  at  Luther's  table  :  "  Remember  this  defi- 
nition :  A  Papist  is  a  liar  and  a  murderer,  or  the  devil  himself. 
They  are  not  to  be  trusted  in  the  least,  for  they  thirst  after  our 
blood."4 

His  opinion  of  Jacob  Schenk  coincided  with  that  of 
Luther  :  His  "  head  is  full  of  confused  notions  "  ;  he  was  as 
"  poison  "  amongst  the  Wittenberg  theologians,  so  that  Bugen- 
hagen  did  well  in  refusing  him  his  daughter  in  marriage.5  Of 
Agricola  he  remarked  playfully,  when  the  latter  had  uttered  the 
word  "  oportet  "  (it  must  be)  :  "  The  '  must '  must  be  removed  ; 
the  salt  has  got  into  it  and  we  refuse  to  take  it."  Whereupon 
Luther  replied  :  "  He  must  swallow  the  '  must '  but  I  shall  put 
such  salt  into  it  that  he  will  want  to  spit  it  out  again."6  No  one, 
so  well  as  Jonas,  knew  how  to  cheer  up  Luther,  hence  Katey 
sometimes  invited  him  to  table  secretly.7  It  is  true  that  his 
chatter  sometimes  proved  tiresome  to  the  other  guests,  for  one 
of  them,  viz.  Cordatus,  laments  that  he  interrupted  Luther's 
best  sayings  with  his  endless  talk.8  The  truth  is,  of  course,  that 
the  pupils  were  anxious  to  drink  in  words  from  Luther's  own 
lips.  Luther  for  his  part  encouraged  his  friend  when  the  latter 
was  oppressed  by  illness  or  interior  anxieties.  Jonas  suffered 
from  calculus,  and,  during  one  of  his  attacks,  Luther  said  to  him  : 
"  Your  illness  keeps  you  watchful  and  troubled,  it  is  of  more  use 
to  you  than  ten  silver  mines.  God  knows  how  to  direct  the  lives 
of  His  own  people  and  we  must  obey  Him,  each  one  according 
to  our  calling.  Beloved  God,  how  is  Thy  Church  distracted  both 
within  and  without  !  "9  When  Jonas  on  one  occasion,  being 
already  unwell,  was  greatly  troubled  with  scruples  of  conscience 
and  doubts  about  the  faith  ("  tentatus  gravissime  "),  Luther  sent 

1  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  3,  p.  219. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  114.  3  Ibid.,  p.  178. 
4  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  83,  in  1540.       5  Ibid.,  p.  84. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  106. 

7  H.  Weller  to  the  Councillors  at  Halle,  April  18,  1567,  "  Brief- 
wechsel  des  Justus  Jonas,"  ed.  G.  Kawerau,  2,  p.  343. 

8  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  26,  where  he  states  that  Luther  also 
found  fault  with  Katey 's  many  words,  "  quibus  ipsa  perpetuo  optima 
verba  eius  interturbabat.    Et  D.  Ionas  eadem  erat  virtute." 

9  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  2,  p.  317  seq. 


JUSTUS   JONAS  415 

him,  all  written  out,  the  consoling  words  with  which  he  himself 
was  wont  to  find  comfort  in  similar  circumstances  :  "  Have  I  not 
been  found  worthy  to  be  called  to  the  service  of  the  Word  and 
been  commanded,  under  pain  of  Thine  everlasting  displeasure, 
to  believe  what  has  been  revealed  to  me  and  in  no  way  to  doubt 
it  ?  .  .  .  Act  manfully  and  strengthen  your  heart,  all  ye  that  hope 
in  God."1 

In  the  matter  of  faith  Jonas  was  easily  contented,  and,  for  this, 
Luther  praised  him  ;  since  a  man  could  not  comprehend  the 
Articles,  it  was  sufficient  for  him  to  begin  with  a  mere  assent 
("  ut  incipiamus  tantum  assentiri ").  This  theology  actually 
appealed  to  Luther  so  much  that  he  exclaimed  :  "  Yes,  dear  Dr. 
Jonas,  if  a  man  could  believe  it  as  it  stands,  his  heart  would  burst 
for  joy  !  That  is  sure.  Hence  we  shall  never  attain  to  its  com- 
prehension."2 On  Ascension  Day,  1540,  Luther's  pupils  wrote 
down  these  words  which  fell  from  his  lips  :  "I  am  fond  of  Jonas, 
but  if  he  were  to  ascend  up  to  heaven  and  be  taken  from  us,  what 
should  I  then  think  ?  .  .  .  Strange,  I  cannot  understand  it  and 
cannot  believe  it,  and  yet  all  the  Apostles  believed.  .  .  .  Oh,  if 
only  a  man  could  believe  it  !  "3 

Jonas  found  the  faith  amongst  the  country  people  around 
Wittenberg  so  feeble  and  barren  of  fruit,  that,  on  one  occasion, 
he  complained  of  it  with  great  anger.  Luther  sought  to  pacify 
him  :  God's  chastisement  will  fall  upon  these  peasants  in  due 
time  ;  God  is  strong  enough  to  deal  with  them.  He  added,  how- 
ever, admitting  that  Jonas  was  right  :  "  Is  it  not  a  disgrace  that 
in  the  whole  Wittenberg  district  only  one  peasant  can  be  found 
in  all  the  villages  who  seriously  exhorts  his  household  in  the 
Word  of  God  and  the  Catechism  ?  The  others  are  all  going  to 
the  devil  !  "4 

Justus  Jonas,  whose  real  name  was  Jodocus  (Jobst)  Koch, 
was  a  native  of  Nordhausen  in  the  province  of  Saxony.  He, 
like  Bugenhagen,  could  not  boast  of  a  theological  education 
as  he  had  devoted  himself  to  jurisprudence,  and,  as  an 
enthusiastic  Erasmian,  to  Humanism.  In  1514  or  1515  he 
became  priest  at  Erfurt,  and  in  1518  Doctor  of  Civil  and 
Canon  Law,  at  the  same  time  securing  a  comfortable  canonry. 
He  attached  himself  to  Luther  during  the  latter's  journey 
to  Worms,  and  in  July,  1521,  migrated  to  Wittenberg,  where 
he  lectured  at  the  University  on  Canon  Law  and  also  on 
theology,  after  having  been  duly  promoted  to  the  dignity  of 
Doctor  in  the  theological  Faculty ;  at  the  same  time  he  was 
provost  of  the  Schlosskirche. 

1  "Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  3,  p.  219.    See  above,  p.  110  f. 

2  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  313,  in  1543.  3  Ibid.,  p.  79. 

4  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  175  :   "  tantum  unum  habere  rusticum 
ex  tot  pagis,"  etc. 


416  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

In  1522  he  married  a  Wittenberg  girl,  and,  in  the  following 
year,  vindicated  this  step  against  Johann  Faber  in  "  Adv. 
J.  Fabrum,  scortationis  patronum,  pro  coniugio  sacerdotali," 
just  as  Bugenhagen  after  his  marriage  had  found  occasion 
to  defend  in  print  priestly  matrimony.  In  1523  he  lectured 
on  Romans.  Of  his  publications  his  translations  of  Luther's 
works  were  particularly  prized. 

His  practical  mind,  his  schooling  in  the  law,  and  his 
business  abilities,  no  less  than  the  friendship  of  Luther 
bestowed  upon  a  man  so  ready  with  the  pen,  procured  for 
him  his  nomination  as  dean  of  the  theological  Faculty  ;  this 
position  he  retained  from  1523  till  1533.  Jonas,  the  "  theo- 
logian by  choice,"  as  Luther  termed  him  in  contradistinc- 
tion to  Amsdorf,  the  "  theologian  by  nature,"  took  part  in 
all  the  important  events  connected  with  Lutheranism,  in  the 
Conference  at  Marburg,  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  and  the 
Visitations  in  the  Saxon  Electorate  from  1528  onwards,  also 
in  the  introduction  of  the  innovations  into  the  Duchy  of 
Saxony  in  1539.  In  1541  he  introduced  the  new  church- 
system  in  the  town  of  Halle,  which  till  then  had  been  the 
residence  of  the  Cardinal-Elector,  Albert  of  Mayence.  From 
the  time  of  the  War  of  Schmalkalden  and  the  misfortunes 
which  ensued,  his  interior  troubles  grew  into  a  mental 
malady.  Melanchthon  speaks  of  his  "animus  cegrotus." 
His  was  a  form  of  the  "  morbus  melancholicus  "x  which  we 
meet  with  so  often  at  that  time  amongst  disappointed  and 
broken-down  men  within  the  Protestant  fold,  and  which  was 
unquestionably  due  to  religious  troubles.  According  to  the 
report  of  one  Protestant,  Cyriacus  Schnauss  (1556),  and  of 
a  certain  -anonymous  writer,  his  death  (f  October  9,  1555), 2 
was  happier  than  his  life.  To  the  darker  side  of  his  char- 
acter belongs  the  malicious  and  personal  nature  of  his 
polemics,  as  experienced,  for  instance,  by  Johann  Faber 
and  Wicel,  whom  he  attacked  with  the  weapon  of  calumny, 
and  his  "  constant,  often  petty,  concern  in  the  increase  of 
his  income."3 

1  See  vol.  iv.,  xxiv.  4. 

2  Cp.  G.  Kawerau,  "  Jonas'  Brief wechsel,"  2,  p.  Iv.  f.,  and  also  in 
"  RE.  fur  prot.  Theol.,"3  Art.  "Jonas." 

3  Kawerau,  in  "RE.,"  ibid.  Concerning  his  polemics  with  Wicel, 
Kawerau  admits  (in  "Jonas'  Brief  wechsel,"  2,  p.  xxxviii.)  that  "  Georg 
Witzels  historia  "  by  Jonas  is  no  "  reliable  source,"  and  of  the  attack 
on  the  Emperor  he  declares  (p.  xlix.)  that,  during  the  Schmalkalden 
War,  Jonas  caused  him  to  be  prayed  against  as  "  Antichrist." 


CHAPTER    XX 

ATTEMPTS    AT    UNION    IN    VIEW    OF    THE    PROPOSED    COUNCIL 

1.    Ziirich,  Munster,  the  Wittenberg  Concord,  1536 

The  tension  between  Luther  and  the  Swiss  theologians  grew 
ever  greater  after  Zwingli's  death.  Zwingli's  successors 
complained  bitterly  of  the  unkind  treatment  and  the 
reprobation  meted  out  at  Wittenberg  to  themselves,  as  well 
as  to  Zwingli's  memory,  and  their  doctrines. 

Leo  Judae,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  Swiss  party,  writing  in 
1534  to  Bucer,  a  kindred  spirit,  concerning  the  latter's  rough 
treatment  of  Schwenckfeld,  takes  the  opportunity  to  voice  his 
bitter  grudge  against  Luther  :  "  If  it  is  right  to  oppose  Schwenck- 
feld, why  do  we  not  write  in  the  same  way  against  Luther  ?  Why 
do  we  not  issue  a  proclamation  warning  people  against  him, 
seeing  that  he  advocates  theories,  not  only  on  the  Sacrament 
but  on  other  matters  too,  which  are  utterly  at  variance  with  Holy 
Scripture  ?  Yet  he  hands  us  over  to  Satan  and  decrees  our 
exclusion."1 

Martin  Bucer  himself  complained  in  1534  to  his  Zwinglian 
friend  Bullinger  :  "  The  fury  is  intolerable  with  which  Luther 
storms  and  rages  against  everyone  who  he  imagines  differs  from 
him,  even  though  not  actually  an  opponent.  Thus  he  curses  the 
most  pious  men  and  those  who  have  been  of  the  greatest  service 
to  the  Church.  It  is  this  alone  which  has  brought  me  into  the 
arena  and  induced  me  to  join  my  voice  to  yours  in  this  controversy 
on  the  Sacrament."2 

Heinrich  Bullinger,  on  whom,  after  Zwingli's  death,  devolved 
the  leadership  of  the  Swiss  innovators,  wrote  later  to  Bucer  : 
"  Luther's  rude  hostility  might  be  allowed  to  pass  would  he  but 
leave  intact  respect  for  Holy  Scripture.  ...  To  such  lengths  has 
this  man's  proud  spirit  carried  him,  while  all  the  preachers  and 
ministers  worship  his  writings  as  so  many  oracles,  and  extol  his 
spirit  as  apostolic,  of  whose  fulness  all  have  received.  What  has 
already  taken  place  leads  us  to  apprehend  that  this  man  will 
eventually  bring  great  misfortune  upon  the  Church."3 

1  On  February  9,   1534,  Kolde,   "  Anal.  Luthcrana"  p.  204.     For 
other  similar  passages  see  above,  p    277  f. 

2  To  Bullinger,  April  9,  1534,  ibid.,  p.  205  :    "  furit  et  debacchatur  in 
quoslibet  .  .  .  sicque  devovet  vivos  sanctissimos,"  etc. 

3  Letter  of  December  8,  1543.     Cp.  Hess,   "  Leben  Bullingers,"   1, 
p.  404  seq. 

III. — 2   E  471 


418  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

Just  as  Luther's  work  differed  from  the  religious  innova- 
tions in  Switzerland,  so  it  differed  equally,  or  even  more, 
from  that  of  the  Anabaptists,  despite  the  fact  that  the  latter 
traced  their  origin  to  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  Bible  as  the 
one  source  of  faith,  and  were  largely  indebted  to  him  for  the 
stress  he  had  laid  on  the  inward  Word.1  "  The  Anabaptist 
movement  was  a  product  of  the  religious  innovations  of  the 
sixteenth  century,"  "  the  fanatical  sect  an  outcome  of  the  so- 
called  Reformation,"2  Notwithstanding  the  severe  persecu- 
tion they  encountered,  particularly  in  Switzerland  and  in 
the  German  uplands,  they  soon  spread  throughout  other 
parts  of  Germany,  thanks  chiefly  to  the  attractions  of  their 
conventicle  system.  An  Imperial  mandate  of  January  4, 
1528,  imposed  the  death  penalty  on  Anabaptist  heretics, 
their  sacrilegious  repetition  of  baptism  being  taken  as 
equivalent  to  a  denial  of  this  sacrament  and  therefore  as  a 
capital  offence  against  religion. 

The  growth  of  the  Anabaptist  heresy,  in  spite  of  all 
measures  of  repression,  filled  Luther  with  astonishment, 
but  its  explanation  is  to  be  found  not  only  in  the  religious 
subjectivism  let  loose  among  the  masses,  but  also  in  the 
fact,  that,  many  elements  of  revolt  smouldering  even  before 
Luther's  day  helped  to  further  the  Anabaptist  conflagration. 
The  fanatics  also  gained  many  adherents  among  those  who 
were  disappointed  in  Luther  owing  to  their  hopes  that  he 
would  ameliorate  morals  not  being  realised ;  instead  of 
returning  to  the  true  Church  they  preferred  to  put  their 
trust  in  these  new  sects,  thinking  that  their  outward  rigour 
was  a  guarantee  that  they  would  amend  the  life  of  the 
people.  The  popular  preaching  and  ways  of  the  Anabaptist 
missioners,  recalling  the  apostolic  age  of  the  Church,  had  a 
powerful  effect  upon  those  of  the  lower  classes  who  had 
religious  leanings  ;  the  sufferings  and  persecution  they 
endured  with  such  constancy  also  earned  them  admiration 
and  sympathy.  The  sectarians  were  proud  of  "  the  self- 
sacrificing  brotherly  love  existing  in  their  communities,  so 
different  from  the  stress  laid  upon  a  faith  only  too  often 
quite  barren  of  good  works."3 

They  were  so  firm  in  their  repudiation  of  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  Justification  and  held  fast  so  frankly  to  the 

1  See  vol.  ii.,  p.  363  fit 

2  P.  X.  Funk  in  "  KL.,"2  Art.  "  Wiedertaufer,"  col.  1491,  1483- 

3  G.  Kawerau,  in  Moller,  "  KG.,"  33,  p.  92. 


THE  MUNSTER   FANATICS  419 

Catholic  principle  of  the  necessity  of  man's  co-operation  in 
order  to  secure  God's  pardon,  that  Luther  angrily  classed 
them  with  the  Papists  :  "  They  are  foxes,"  he  wrote,  "  who 
are  tied  to  the  Papists  by  their  tails,  though  the  head  is 
different ;  they  behave  outwardly  as  though  they  were  their 
greatest  enemies,  and  yet  they  share  with  them  the  same 
heresy  against  Christ  our  only  Saviour,  Who  alone  is  our 
Righteousness."1  The  Anabaptists  also  opposed  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Supper,  denying,  like  the  Zwing- 
lians,  the  Real  Presence.  Their  congregations,  however, 
differed  vastly  both  in  belief  and  in  observance.  To  all 
intents  and  purposes  their  strictness  was  merely  outward, 
serving  to  cloak  the  vices  of  their  lives  and  their  frivolous 
enjoyment  of  the  "  freedom  of  the  Gospel." 

Luther's  hostility  to  the  Anabaptists  was  in  many 
respects  of  service  to  Lutheranism  ;  it  was  inspired  and 
promoted  by  the  law  of  self-preservation.  The  culmination 
of  the  movement  at  Miinster,  in  Westphalia,  showed  that  the 
Wittenberger's  instinct  had  not  erred.  It  is  true,  however, 
that  Luther's  harsh  and  repellent  conduct  towards  the 
Anabaptist  sects  caused  the  loss  to  the  Protestants  of  much 
that  was  good  which  might  well  have  been  retained  had 
he  shown  a  little  more  consideration  at  least  for  the  better 
minds  among  the  "  fanatics  "  ;  their  criticism  might  have 
done  much  to  remedy  what  was  really  amiss.  - 

When,  in  1534,  the  Anabaptists  became  all-powerful  at 
Miinster,  and  that  under  their  very  worst  form,  they  made  haste 
to  attack  Luther.  He,  of  course,  was  in  duty  bound  to  disapprove 
of  their  fearsome  excesses,  particularly  when  the  freedom  of  the 
Evangel  degenerated  into  obligatory  polygamy  and  the  most 
revolting  service  of  the  flesh.  The  seditious  spirits,  in  their  hatred, 
declared  that  "  there  are  two  false  prophets,  the  Pope  and  Luther, 
but  that,  of  the  two,  Luther  is  the  worse."2  Luther,  on  his  side, 
retorted  :  "  Alas,  what  can  I  write  of  these  wretched  creatures 
at  Miinster  ?  It  is  perfectly  evident  that  the  devil  reigns  there 
in  person,  yea,  one  devil  sits  on  the  back  of  another,  like  the 
toads  do."3 

1  "  Comment,  in  Galat.,"  ed.  Irmischer,  1,  p.  8. 

2  So  at  least  says  Luther  in  the  Preface  to  a  work  of  Urban  Regius 
against  the  Anabaptists  of  Miinster,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  63,  p.  332  : 
"  They  write  :  That  there  are,"  etc.    Luther  strongly  urges  the  contrary. 

3  In  the  Preface  to  the  "  Neue  Zeitung  von  Miinster,"  ibid.,  p.  336. 
Cp.  Luther's  letter  to  Frederick  Myconius  on  July  5,  1534,  "  Brief - 
wechsel,"  10,  p.  62  :  "  De  anabaptistis  Monasteriensibus  parum  euro. 
Satan  furit,  sed  stat  Scriptum." 


420  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

After  the  siege  of  Miinster  had  closed  in  its  capture  on  June 
25,  1535,  and  the  reign  of  terror  had  been  brought  to  an  end  by 
the  execution  of  the  leaders,  viz.  Johann  of  Leyden  and  his 
friends,  some  of  Luther's  followers  turned  their  attention  to  the 
Sacramentarian  Zwinglians  of  Switzerland  and  South  Germany, 
in  the  hope  that  some  basis  might  be  found  for  union. 

Paul  III.  had  ascended  the  Papal  throne  in  1534.  On  his 
showing  a  real  intention  to  summon  an  (Ecumenical  Council 
in  order  to  put  an  end  to  the  religious  schism,  the  Reformers 
began  to  feel  keenly  how  necessary  it  was  to  unite  for  the 
purpose  of  offering  practical  resistance  to  their  common  foe, 
viz.  Catholicism.  The  political  situation  was  likewise 
favourable  to  such  efforts.  The  Nuremberg  truce  in  1532 
had  expressly  been  intended  to  last  only  for  a  limited 
period,  hence  the  necessity  to  find  new  means  to  make  their 
position  secure  and  increase  their  numbers. 

In  1535  a  star  of  hope  which  seemed  to  forebode  some 
agreement  rose  on  the  horizon.  On  this  Luther  wrote  as 
follows  to  a  trusted  friend  in  August  :  "  An  attempt  is 
being  made,  with  great  hopes  and  yearning,  to  come  to  some 
agreement  ('  concordia  ')  between  ourselves  and  the  Sacra- 
mentarians.  Christ  grant  it  to  be  realised  and  of  His 
Goodness  remove  that  great  scandal  so  that  strong  measures 
may  not  be  necessary  as  at  Miinster."1  Hence  the  Swiss 
theologians  in  his  eyes  were  scarcely  better  than  the  authors 
of  the  disgraceful  abominations  in  Westphalia. 

What  sort  of  "  concord  "  was  to  be  expected  while  such 
a  temper  held  sway  unless,  indeed,  the  Zwinglians  were 
prepared  to  renounce  their  own  existence  and  throw  their 
master  overboard  ? 

The  prime  movers  in  the  attempt  to  bring-  about  an 
understanding  between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Swiss  and 
the  like-minded  Evangelicals  of  Upper  Germany,  were  the 
Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse,  and  the  theologian  Martin 
Bucer. 

Bucer,  who  was  unremitting  in  his  efforts  to  secure  that 
union  which  was  his  life-ideal,  had  already,  at  the  Diet  of 
Augsburg,  paved  the  way  for  an  understanding,  not  without 
some  success.  At  the  Coburg  (September  25-26,  1530)  he 
managed  to  win  over  Luther  to  his  view,  viz.  that  an  agree- 
ment might  be  looked  for  with  the  Strasburgers  regarding 

1  To  Jacob  Probst  at  Bremen,  August  23,  1535,  "  Brief wechsel,"  10, 
p.  197  f. 


ATTEMPTS   AT   UNION  421 

the  Sacrament.1  He  then  travelled  through  Upper  Germany 
and  Switzerland  with  a  plan  for  compromise,  in  which  the 
contradiction  between  the  denial  and  assertion  of  the 
Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  was  ably  concealed  ; 
Melanchthon  he  met  at  Cassel  in  1534,  and  on  this  occa- 
sion, ostensibly  in  the  name  of  many  South- German 
theologians,  made  proposals  which  seem  to  have  satisfied 
Luther. 

After  further  preliminaries,  peace  negotiations  were  to 
have  taken  place  at  Eisleben  in  the  spring  of  1536,  but  as 
Luther,  owing  to  illness  and  new  scruples,  did  not  appear, 
discussion  was  deferred  till  May  22,  the  delegates  to  meet 
at  Wittenberg.  Thither  representatives  of  Strasburg,  Augs- 
burg, Memmingen,  Ulm,  Esslingen,  Reutlingen,  Frankfurt, 
and  Constance  betook  themselves,  accompanied  by  the 
Lutherans,  Menius  from  Eisenach  and  Myconius  from  Gotha. 
No  Swiss  delegate  was  present. 

After  protracted  negotiations  the  South-German  theo- 
logians accepted  a  number  of  articles  drawn  up  by  Melanch- 
thon and  known  as  the  Wittenberg  Concord.2 

In  this  they  recognised  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  ;  as 
regards  Confession,  they  admitted  that,  though  confession 
as  formerly  practised  could  not  be  tolerated,  yet  a  humble 
private  interview  with  the  preacher,  and  private  absolution 
previous  to  the  reception  of  communion,  were  useful  and 
wholesome.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  the  main  differ- 
ence, viz.  that  concerning  the  Presence  of  Christ  in  the 
Sacrament,  was  only  seemingly  bridged  over.  It  is  true  the 
South- German  delegates  accepted  the  formula,  that  in 
the  Sacrament,  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord  are  "  really 
and  substantially  "  present  by  virtue  of  Christ's  words  of 
institution,  so  that  even  the  "  unworthy  "  verily  receive  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  The  interpretation  which  they, 
headed  by  Bucer,  placed  upon  the  words  showed,  however, 
quite  plainly,  that  they  did  not  agree  with  Luther,  but  still 
clung  to  the  view  that  Christ  is  not  corporally  present  but 
only  by  that  faith,  which  even  the  "  unworthy  "  may  have, 

1  Cp.  Bucer  to  Luther,  August  25,  1530,  "  Luthers  Brief wechsel,"  8, 
p.  209  ff.  Nicholas  Gerbel  to  Luther,  from  Strasburg,  October  21,  1530, 
ibid.,  p.  292  ;  Luther  to  Joh.  Brismann  at  Riga,  November  7,  1530, 
ibid.,  p.  312  :  "  Sacramentarios,  saltern  Strassburgenses,  nobiscum  in 
gratiam  redire  spes  est"  ;  he  adds,  however,  a  doubt  as  to  Bucer's 
sincerity  :    "  Si  nonfallit  quod  dicit  ;  admonui  enim,  ne  simularet.'''' 

2  "  Corp.  ref.,"  3,  p.  75  seq. 


422  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

and  that  He  does  not  bestow  on  the  communicant  His 
Flesh  and  Blood,  but  merely  His  grace.  "  The  Real 
Presence  of  Christ  was  to  him  [Bucer]  after  all  only  a  spiritual 
presence."1  At  any  rate  "  the  South-Germans,  under  stress 
of  political  danger,  rejoined  Luther,"2  though  some  of  the 
towns  subsequently  added  conditions  to  their  acceptance  of 
the  arrangements  made  by  their  theologians. 

Having  been  thus  far  successful  Bucer,  with  consummate 
ability  and  eloquence,  proceeded  to  try  to  win  over  the 
friendly  Swiss  Zwinglians  to  the  Concord. 

The  Swiss  were  not,  however,  to  be  so  easily  induced  to 
take  this  step.  In  spite  of  several  friendly  letters  from 
Luther  they  could  not  arrive  at  the  same  apparent  agree- 
ment with  him  as  the  South-Germans.  For  this  the  blame 
rested  to  some  extent  on  Luther's  shoulders,  his  conduct 
at  this  juncture,  owing  to  political  considerations,  being 
neither  well-defined  nor  straightforward.  The  Burgomasters 
and  Councillors  of  the  seven  towns,  Zurich,  Bern,  Basle, 
Schaffhausen,  St.  Gall,  Miihlhausen  and  Bienne,  addressed 
letters  to  him  couched  in  conciliatory  language,  but  Luther, 
in  spite  of  Bullinger's  request,  would  not  even  enumerate 
in  detail  the  points  of  difference  which  separated  them  from 
him.  For  the  nonce  he  preferred  the  policy  of  leaving 
doctrine  alone  and  of  "  calming  down,  smoothing  and 
furthering  matters  for  the  best,"3  though  all  the  time  he 
was  well  aware  of  their  theological  views  and  firm  in  his 
repudiation  of  them. 

"  The  matter  refuses  to  suit  itself  to  us,  and  we  must 
accordingly  suit  ourselves  to  it,"4  such  was,  for  a  long  while, 
his  motto.  He  is  willing  to  hold  out  to  the  Zwinglians  the 
hand  of  friendship  without,  however,  consenting  to  regard 
the  points  in  dispute  as  minor  matters.  Possibly  he  cherished 
the  hope  that,  little  by  little,  agreement  would  be  reached 
even  on  these  points. 

Luther's  attitude  has  rightly  been  considered  strange, 
particularly  when  compared  with  his  former  severity.  Even 
Protestants  have  instanced  it  as  remarkable,  that  he  should 

1  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  348,  with  account  of  the  acceptance  of 
the  Concord.  2  Kawerau,  in  Moller,  "  KG.,"  33,  p.  125. 

3  Luther  to  Jacob  Meyer,  Burgomaster  of  Basle,  February  17,  1537, 
"Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  55,  p.  172  ("  Brief wechsel,"  11,  p.  201).  To  this 
letter  Luther  frequently  refers  as  best  expressive  of  his  standpoint. 

*  Ibid. 


ATTEMPTS  AT  UNION  423 

have  contrived  "  to  close  his  eyes  to  the  differences  which 
still  remained  in  spite  of  the  Concord,  and  to  agree  with 
people  whose  previous  teaching  he  had  regarded  as  danger- 
ous heresy,  requiring  to  be  expelled  by  a  determined  testi- 
mony to  the  truth."1  At  any  rate  "  the  broadness  manifested 
by  Luther  in  this  matter  of  faith "  was  something  very 
foreign  to  his  usual  habits. 

The  explanation  of  the  change  in  his  behaviour  lies 
chiefly  in  his  urgent  desire  "  to  become  terrible  to  the  Pope 
and  the  Emperor  "  by  forming  an  alliance  with  the  Swiss 
Churches  and  townships,  a  hope  which  he  even  expressed 
to  his  Wittenberg  friends,  adding,  however,  that  "  in  men 
one  can  never  trust,"  and,  "  I  will  not  surrender  God's 
Word."2  To  Duke  Albert  of  Prussia  he  wrote  full  of  joy,  in 
May,  1538  :  "  Things  have  been  set  going  with  the  Swiss, 
who  hitherto  have  been  at  loggerheads  with  us  on  account 
of  the  Sacrament.  ...  I  hope  God  will  put  an  end  to  this 
scandal,  not  for  our  sake,  for  we  have  deserved  it,  but  for 
His  Name's  sake,  and  in  order  to  vex  the  abomination  at 
Rome,  for  they  are  greatly  affrighted  and  apprehensive  at 
the  new  tidings."3  Considerations  of  policy  had  entirely 
altered  Luther's  tone  to  the  Zwinglians. 

The  bridge,  however,  collapsed  before  its  completion. 

The  unrestrained  language  which  Luther  again  employed 
towards  the  Swiss  did  much  to  demonstrate  how  little  real 
foundation  there  was  in  the  efforts  at  conciliation.  The 
experiences  he  met  with  made  him  regret  his  passing 
opportunism,  and  in  later  life  the  tone  in  which  he  spoke 
of  the  Zwinglian  errors  and  their  supporters  was  violent 
in  the  extreme.  When  a  letter  reached  him  from  the 
Evangelicals  of  Venice  bewailing  the  dissensions  aroused 
by  the  controversy  on  the  Sacrament,  he  said  in  his  reply, 
dated  June,  1543  :  These  Zwinglians  and  their  neighbours 
"  are  intoxicated  by  an  alien  spirit,  and  their  company  must 
be  avoided  as  infectious."4 

To  his  friend  Link  he  wrote  about  that  time  :  "  These  Swiss 
and  Ziirichers  pronounce  their  own  condemnation  by  their  pride 

1  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  348. 

2  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  2,  p.  46. 

3  On  May  6,  1538,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  55,  p.  200  ("  Briefwechsel," 
11,  p.  357). 

4  On  June  13,  1543,  "  Briefe,"  ed.  De  Wette,  5,  p.  567  f. 


424  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

and  madness,  as  Paul  says"  (Titus  iii.  II).1  To  Zurich  itself  he 
soon  made  no  secret  of  his  changed  temper,  writing  in  August 
that  :  he  could  have  no  fellowship  with  the  preachers  there  ; 
they  were  determined  to  lead  the  unfortunate  people  to  hell  ; 
the  judgment  of  God  which  had  overtaken  Zwingli  would  also 
fall  upon  these  preachers  of  blasphemy,  since  they  had  made  up 
their  minds  to  follow  Zwingli.2 

In  September  of  that  same  year  appeared  his  energetic  "  Kurtz 
Bekentnis  Doctor  Martin  Luthers  vom  heiligen  Sacrament."3 

Complying  with  a  need  he  felt  he  sought  in  this  writing  to  give 
public  testimony  to  his  faith  in  the  Eucharist  ;  in  order  at  once 
to  disperse  the  ghosts  of  the  Concord,  and  to  bar  the  progress  of 
the  denial  of  the  Sacrament  which  had  already  infected  Melanch- 
thon  and  other  friends  around  him,  he  here  speaks  frankly  and 
openly.  In  his  usual  vein  he  says,  that  it  was  his  wish  "  to  be 
able  to  boast  at  the  Judgment  Seat  of  the  Lord  "  that  "  I  con- 
demned with  all  my  power  the  fanatics  and  enemies  of  the 
Sacrament,  Carlstadt,  '  Zwingel,'  (Ecolampadius,  '  Stinkfield  ' 
[Schwenckfeld],  and  their  disciples  at  Zurich  and  wherever  else 
they  be."  The  fanatics,  he  says,  make  a  "  great  to-do  "  about  a 
spiritual  eating  and  drinking,  but  they  are  "  murderers  of  souls." 
They  have  a  "  devilish  heart  and  lying  lips."  Whoever  believed 
not  the  Article  concerning  Christ's  Presence  in  the  Sacrament, 
could  not  believe  in  the  Incarnation.  "  Hence  there  is  no 
alternative,  you  must  either  believe  everything  or  nothing."  Thus 
Luther  himself  at  last  comes  to  urge  against  his  opponents  what 
Catholic  apologists  had  long  before  urged  against  him.  They 
had  said  :  If  you  set  aside  this  or  that  article  of  faith  on  the 
grounds  of  a  higher  illumination,  the  result  will  be  the  complete 
subversion  of  the  faith,  for  the  edifice  of  doctrine  is  one  in- 
separable whole  ;  the  divine  and  the  ecclesiastical  authority  is 
the  same  for  all  the  articles,  and,  if  everything  be  not  accepted, 
in  the  end  nothing  will  remain. 


2.    Efforts  in  view  of  a  Council.    Vergerio  visits  Luther 

Pope  Clement  VII.  (|1534),  though  at  first  apprehensive, 
owing  to  his  knowledge  of  what  had  happened  in  the  time  of 
the  Reforming  Councils,  had  nevertheless,  towards  the  end 
of  his  life,  promised  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  at  Bologna,  in 
1533,  that  he  would  summon  an  (Ecumenical  Council.  He 
had  also  sought  to  persuade  the  King  of  France,  Francois  I., 
on  the  occasion  of  their  meeting  at  Marseilles  in  the  same 
year,  to  agree  to  the  Council's  being  held  in  one  of  the 
Italian  towns  which  Pope  and  Emperor  had  agreed  on  at 

1  June  20,  1543,  ibid.,  p.  571. 

2  To  the  printer,  Christoph  Froschauer,  at  Zurich,  August  31,  1543, 
ibid.,  p.  587. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  32,  p.  396  seq. 


VERGERIO  425 

Bologna.1  But  while  Rome  showed  herself  willing  enough, 
the  King  of  France  put  great  obstacles  in  the  way  of  a 
Council,  in  the  hope,  that,  by  preventing  it,  he  would 
prevent  Germany  from  securing  peace  within  her  borders. 

Paul  III.,  the  successor  of  Clement  VII.,  was  more  success- 
ful, though  he  too  had  to  battle  with  his  own  scruples  and 
to  overcome  obstacles  greater  even  than  those  which  faced 
his  predecessor. 

Soon  after  beginning  his  pontificate  he  dispatched  three 
Nuncios  to  pave  the  way  for  the  Council,  Rodolfo  Pio  de 
Carpi  to  France,  Giovanni  Guidiccione  to  Spain,  and  Pier- 
paolo  Vergerio  to  Germany.  The  last  of  these  found  the 
Catholic  Courts  perfectly  willing  to  support  the  Council  ; 
the  heads  of  the  Evangelical  party,  howrever,  chose  to 
observe  an  attitude  to  be  more  fully  described  further  on. 

Charles  V.  having  agreed  to  the  choice  of  Mantua  as  the 
town  where  the  Council  was  to  be  held,  Paul  III.,  in  spite 
of  the  refusal  of  the  Protestants,  by  his  Bull  of  June  2, 
1536,  summoned  the  bishops  to  meet  at  Mantua  on  May  23 
of  the  following  year.  Needless  to  say,  the  assembly  and  its 
procedure  were  to  be  governed  by  the  same  rules  as  in  the 
case  of  earlier  Councils  of  the  Church. 

The  journey  of  Vergerio,  the  Nuncio,  through  Germany  de- 
serves closer  attention  on  account  of  his  meeting  with  Luther. 

The  Papal  envoy,  who  hailed  from  Capodistria  and  was 
more  skilful  in  Court  transactions  than  in  theology,  com- 
menced his  journey  on  February  10,  1535.  From  Vienna  he 
proceeded  to  visit  the  Bavarian  Dukes  and  Suabia.  He 
then  travelled  along  the  Main  and  the  Rhine  as  far  north 
as  Liege,  returning  by  way  of  Cologne  through  Saxony  to 
Brandenburg.  Coming  south  from  Berlin  he  passed  a  night 
at  Wittenberg,  where  he  met  Luther,  and  returned  by  way 
of  Dresden  and  Prague  to  Vienna.  Everywhere  he  did  his 
best  not  only  to  secure  consent  to  the  Papal  plan  of  holding 
the  Council  in  an  Italian  town,  but  also,  as  he  had  been 
instructed,  to  combat  the  dangerous  though  popular 
opposite  plan  of  a  German  national  Council.  He  could  talk 
well,  had  a  sharp  eye  for  business,  and  a  fine  gift  of  observa- 
tion.    His  expectations  as  regards  the  Protestants  were, 

1  See  "  Concilii  Tridentini  Actorum  Pars  1,"  ed.  S.  Ehses,  1904. 
Introduction  by  Ehses,  chap.  10.  Cp.  Pastor,  "  Gesch.  der  Papste,"  4, 
2,  1907,  pp.  471  ff.,  582  11  ;    5,  1909,  p.  31  ff. 


426  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

however,  far  too  rosy.  The  polite  reception  he  met  with 
from  the  Protestant  sovereigns  and  the  honours  done  him 
flattered  his  vanity,  indeed,  but  were  of  little  service  to  the 
cause  he  represented. 

What  his  intention  was  in  going  to  Wittenberg  and  inter- 
viewing Luther  is  not  clear.  He  had  no  instructions  to  do 
so.  If  he  hoped  to  win  over  Luther  to  work  for  the  Council 
and  for  reunion,  he  was  sadly  deceived.  In  reality  all  he  did 
was  to  expose  himself  and  his  cause  to  insult  and  to  furnish 
his  guest  a  welcome  opportunity  for  boasting.  In  that  same 
year,  in  a  work  in  which  he  held  up  the  Council  of 
Constance  to  derision,  Luther  told  the  people  how  little 
Councils  were  to  be  respected  ;  by  this  Council  the  Church 
had  said  to  Christ  :  "  You  are  a  heretic  and  your  teaching 
is  of  the  devil  "  ;  hence  the  Roman  Church  was  possessed, 
"  not  of  seven,  but  of  seven  and  seventy  barrelfuls  of 
devils  "  j1  now  at  last  it  was  time  for  Christ  to  uncover 
back  and  front  the  "  raving,  bloodthirsty  scarlet  woman 
and  reveal  her  shame  to  the  whole  world  "  in  order  to  put  an 
end  to  "  the  insult  which  has  been,  and  still  is  being,  offered 
to  our  dear  Saviour  by  the  dragon  heads  which  peer  out  of 
the  back  parts  of  the  Pope- Ass  and  vomit  forth  abuse."2 

From  Vergerio's  circumstantial  reports  as  Nuncio,  and 
from  other  sources,3  we  learn  the  details  of  the  historic 
meeting  between  the  standard-bearer  of  the  religious  inno- 
vations and  the  envoy  of  the  head  of  Christendom. 

On  his  arrival  at  Wittenberg,  on  November  6,  the  Nuncio, 
accompanied  by  twenty-one  horsemen,  proceeded  to  the  Castle, 
where  he  was  to  be  the  guest  of  Metzsch,  the  Commandant.  He 
sent  an  invitation  by  Metzsch  to  Luther  to  spend  the  evening 
with  him,  but  the  latter  refused  to  come  so  late  and  the  visit 
was  accordingly  arranged  for  the  following  morning.  Luther 
dressed  himself  in  his  best  clothes,  put  on  a  gold  chain,  had 
himself  carefully  shaved  and  his  hair  tidily  brushed.  To  the 
astonished  barber  he  said  jestingly,  that  he  must  appear  young 
in  the  eyes  of  the  Legate  so  as  to  give  him  the  impression  that  he 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  31,  p.  395  seq.  In  the  writing  "  Etliche  Spriiche 
wider  das  Concilium  Obstantiense  "  (Constantiense). 

2  Ibid.,  p.  393.  Cp.  ibid.,  p.  411  ;  cp.  his  mocking  "  Ausschreibung 
eines  heiligen  freien,  christlichen  Conciliums." 

3  Vergerio  to  Ricalcati,  November  13,  1535  ("Nuntiaturber."  1,  ed. 
W.  Friedensburg,  p.  539  ff.).  "  Corp.  Ref.,"  2,  p.  987  (Spalatin's  note). 
"  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  62,  p.  58  (Table-Talk),  Pallavicini,  "  Storia  del  Cone, 
di  Trento,"  3,  18.  Sarpi,  idem,  1,  n.  74.  Cp.  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2, 
p.  371  ff.     Pastor,  op.  cit.,  5,  p.  49  f. 


VERGERIO  427 

was  still  able  to  undertake  and  accomplish  a  great  deal  and  thus 
make  them  fear  him  at  Rome  ;  he  was  determined  to  read  the 
Roman  gentry  a  good  lesson  ;  they  had  molested  him  and  his 
followers  enough,  now  it  was  his  turn  to  get  his  own  back.  As  he  sat 
in  the  carriage  with  Bugenhagen  the  pastor  of  Wittenberg,  ready 
for  the  drive  to  the  Castle,  he  said  :  "  Here  go  the  German  Pope 
and  Cardinal  Pomeranus,  the  chosen  instruments  of  the  Almighty." 

After  being  presented  to  the  Legate,  during  which  cere- 
mony he  doffed  his  hat  (the  only  sign  of  respect  he  was 
willing  to  vouchsafe),  he  was  invited  to  breakfast  with  him. 
During  the  conversation  which  ensued  he  was  at  pains  to  show 
his  real  feelings  by  a  demeanour  as  hostile  and  threatening  as 
possible.  "  During  the  whole  of  the  meal,"  as  he  himself  related 
later  to  Justus  Jonas,1  "  I  played  the  true  Luther  ;  what  sort  of 
things  I  said  could  not  be  put  on  paper."  At  the  first  greeting  he 
at  once  asked  the  Nuncio  ironically,  whether  he  had  not  per- 
chance already  heard  him  decried  in  Italy  as  a  drunken  German. 

Pope  Paul  III.  being  mentioned  by  the  Nuncio,  Luther  said, 
that  he  might  quite  well  be  a  prudent  and  honest  man  ;  such  was 
the  common  report  concerning  the  Farnese  when  he  (Luther) 
was  at  Rome  ;  but  then,  he  added  with  a  mocking  smile,  at  that 
time  he  himself  was  still  in  the  habit  of  saying  Mass. 

Luther  himself  in  the  Table-Talk  relates  his  reply  to  the 
proposal  to  attend  the  Council  :  "  I  shall  come,"  he  said,  "  but 
you  Papists  are  working  and  exerting  yourselves  in  vain  .  .  . 
for,  when  in  Council,  you  never  discuss  wholesome  doctrine,  the 
Sacraments,  or  the  faith  which  alone  makes  us  just  and  saves 
us  .  .  .  but  only  foolish  puerilities,  such  as  the  long  habits  and 
frocks  which  religious  and  priests  are  to  wear,  how  wide  the 
girdle  shall  be  and  how  large  the  tonsure,"  etc.  The  account 
goes  on  to  say,  that,  at  this  sally,  Vergerio,  turning  to  his  com- 
panion, said  :  "  Verily  he  has  hit  the  nail  on  the  head."  It  is 
difficult  to  believe  that  Vergerio  actually  made  such  a  statement 
in  this  connection. 

Speaking  of  the  (Ecumenical  Council  which  had  been  sum- 
moned, we  read  in  Vergerio 's  report  that  Luther  with  insufferable 
arrogance  exclaimed  :  "  We  stand  in  no  need  of  a  Council  for 
ourselves  or  our  followers,  for  we  already  have  the  firm  Evan- 
gelical doctrine  and  rule  ;  but  Christendom  needs  the  Council  in 
order  to  learn  to  distinguish  truth  and  error,  so  far  as  it  is  still 
held  captive  by  false  doctrine.  At  this  outburst  the  Nuncio 
expressed  his  astonishment  :  "  Yes,  I  will  come  to  the  Council," 
Luther  interrupted  him  angrily,  "  I  will  forfeit  my  head  rather 
than  fail  to  defend  my  teaching  against  the  whole  world.  What 
proceeds  from  my  mouth,  is  not  my  own  anger,  but  the  wrath 
of  God  !  " — Whoever  knows  the  man  can  scarcely  doubt  that 
Luther  would  actually  have  gone  to  the  Council  under  certain 
conditions,  particularly  if  furnished  with  a  safe-conduct,  though, 
of   course,   only   once   again   to    "  play   the   real   Luther."      He 

1  On   November    10,    1535,    "  Brief wechsel,"    10,    p.    267:     "  Egi 

Lutherum  ipsum  tola  mensa." 


428  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

certainly  did  not  lack  the  audacity.  He  even  declared  himself 
willing  to  agree  to  any  of  the  places  proposed  for  the  Council, 
whether  Mantua,  Verona,  or  Bologna  ;  when  it  was  pointed  out 
that  Bologna  belonged  to  the  Pope,  Luther,  in  the  presence  of  the 
Pope's  own  representative,  cried  :  "  Good  God,  so  the  Pope 
has  grabbed  that  city  too  !  "  Curiously  enough,  in  the  report 
he  forwarded  to  Rome,  the  Nuncio  declares  himself  satisfied 
with  Luther's  readiness  to  attend  the  Council. 

Vergerio  also  led  the  conversation  to  Henry  VIII.,  the  King 
of  England  ;  as  Robert  Barnes,  an  emissary  of  his,  was  then 
staying  with  Luther  at  Wittenberg,  he  may  have  hoped  to  learn 
something  of  the  King's  intentions.  Luther,  however,  was 
extremely  reticent.  As  he  himself  expressed  it  in  a  letter,  he 
acted  the  part  of  Barnes's  representative  with  "  most  vexatious 
sayings,"  i.e.  with  such  as  would  most  annoy  and  vex  the  Nuncio. 
When  mention  was  made  of  the  cruel  execution  of  Bishop 
John  Fisher — created  Cardinal  whilst  awaiting  his  fate  in 
prison — Luther  ejaculated  that  his  death  was  a  judgment  from 
on  high  because  he  had  won  the  Cardinalate  by  withstanding 
the  Gospel. 

Vergerio  coming  to  speak  of  the  Wittenberg  hierarchy,  Luther 
admitted  that,  at  Wittenberg,  they  ordained  priests  and  that 
Pastor  Bugenhagen,  who  was  then  present,  "  was  the  bishop 
appointed  for  that  work  ;  he  ordained  as  St.  Paul  had  taught  "  ; 
all  in  vain  had  the  "  most  holy  bishops  "  of  the  Papists  refused 
to  ordain  the  Lutheran  preachers.  Alluding  to  his  family,  he 
said  he  hoped  to  leave  behind  him  in  his  firstborn  a  great 
preacher,  priest  and  teacher  of  the  Evangel.  The  "  reverend  " 
nun  "  whom  he  had  married  had  so  far  presented  him  with  three 
boys  and  two  girls."  Various  religious  practices  came  under 
discussion  and  Vergerio,  hoping  to  please,  remarked,  that  he  had 
found  much  amongst  the  German  Protestants  different  from 
what  he  had  been  led  to  expect.  He  also  spoke  of  fasting, 
but  Luther  bluntly  declared,  that,  just  because  trie  Pope  had 
commanded  it,  they  would  refuse  to  observe  it  ;  if,  however,  the 
Emperor  were  to  give  the  order,  they  would  comply  with  it  ;  he 
himself  would  be  right  glad  were  the  Emperor  to  set  apart  two 
days  in  every  week  to  be  kept  as  strict  fasts. 

Though  all  this,  which,  moreover,  the  Nuncio  took  quite 
seriously,  made  him  angry,  as  is  evident  from  his  report,  yet  he 
found  leisure  during  the  conversation  to  observe  his  guest  closely. 
He  describes  his  dress  :  A  doublet  of  dark  camelot  cloth,  the 
sleeves  trimmed  with  satin  ;  over  this  a  rather  short  coat  of 
serge,  edged  with  fox  skin.1  The  large,  rough  buttons  used  struck 
the  Italian  as  peculiar.  On  Luther's  fingers  he  saw  several  rings 
and  round  his  neck  the  heavy  gold  chain.  He  found  that  Luther 
did  not  speak  Latin  very  well  and  ventured  to  surmise  that 
certain  books,  couched  in  better  Latin,  were  probably  not  really 
written  by  him.  Of  this,  however,  there  is  no  proof.  Luther 
admitted  to  him  that  he  was  not  used  to  speaking  Latin  and  that 

1  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  375. 


VERGERIO  429 

he  was  more  at  home  in  German.  He  looked  strong,  so  Vergerio 
says,  and  though  past  fifty  did  not  appear  to  be  even  forty  years 
of  age.  He  considered  Luther's  features  extremely  coarse, 
tallying  with  his  manners,  which  displayed  "  presumption, 
malice  and  want  of  reflection."  His  way  of  speaking  showed  that 
"  everything  he  did  was  done  in  irritation,  annoyance  and  out  of 
spite  ;  he  was  a  silly  fellow,  without  either  depth  or  discern- 
ment."1 

Vergerio  also  fancied  he  saw  in  him  something  devilish.  The 
longer  he  observed  the  piercing,  uncanny  glance  of  Luther's  eyes, 
so  he  writes,  the  more  he  was  put  in  mind  of  certain  persons  who 
were  regarded  by  many  as  possessed  ;  the  heat,  the  restlessness, 
the  fury  and  frenzy  expressed  in  his  eyes  were  quite  similar  to 
theirs.2  He  even  casually  refers  to  circumstances  (which,  how- 
ever, he  does  not  describe)  of  Luther's  birth  and  earlier  years, 
which  he  had  learnt  from  friends  of  Luther's  who  had  been 
intimate  with  him  before  he  became  a  monk  ;  they  confirmed 
him  in  his  belief  that  the  devil  had  entered  into  Luther.3  Although 
Vergerio  immediately  after  admits  his  doubt  ("  whether  he  be 
possessed  or  not"),  yet  in  what  he  had  written  Contarini  dis- 
covered sufficient  to  justify  him  in  saying  that  Vergerio  "  found 
that  Martin  was  begotten  of  the  devil."4  Contarini  here  is  really 
building  on  a  stupid  fable,  which,  as  will  be  shown  later  (vol.  iv., 
xxvii.  1),  is  first  met  with  in  the  writings  of  Petrus  Sylvius,  a 
Catholic  author.  What  the  Legate  says  concerning  the  circum- 
stances of  Luther's  parents  is  not  of  a  nature  to  excite  any 
confidence  in  the  reliability  of  his  information  about  Luther's 
youth.  In  Rome  people  were  already  perfectly  acquainted  with 
Luther's  antecedents,  as  information  had  been  obtained  from 
reliable  witnesses  even  before  his  final  excommunication.  The 
tittle-tattle  of  this  new  informant  could  accordingly  have  no 
influence  on  the  opinion  concerning  him  already  prevailing  there. 

After  Vergerio  the  Nuncio  had  returned  to  Rome  in  the 
beginning  of  1536,  full  of  extravagant  hopes,  he  took  part  in 
the  drafting  of  the  Bull  already  mentioned,  summoning  the 
Council  to  meet  at  Mantua  in  1537.  In  the  same  year  he 
was  consecrated  bishop.  He  was  not,  however,  employed 
in  diplomacy  as  frequently  as  he  wished.  In  1541  un- 
favourable reports  began  to  circulate  concerning  his  attitude 
towards   the    Church ;     he    was    charged    with    Protestant 

1  "  Senza  nervo,  sensa  iudicio  et  una  bestia."  "  Nuntiaturberichte," 
p.  543.  "  Bestia  "  in  such  a  connection  even  now  does  not  signify 
a  "  beast,"  but  rather  a  foolish  man  of  whom  no  use  can  be  made. 

2  "Ha  li  occhi  sguerzi,  li  quali  quanto  piu  io  mirava,  tan  to  piu  mi 
pareva  di  vederli  appunto  simili  a  quelli,  che  qualche  volta  io  ho  veduto, 
di  qualche  uno  iudicato  inspiritato,  cosi  affogati,  inconstanti  et  con 
certo  come  furor  et  rabie,  che  vi  si  vede  dentro  "  (p.  541). 

3  "  Che  egli  habbia  qualche  demonio  adosso." 

4  In  Friedensburg,  "  Nuntiaturberichte,"  p.  554. 


430  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

leanings,  though  some  of  the  witnesses  in  the  trial  which  he 
had  to  stand  at  Venice  protested  his  entire  innocence.  At 
any  rate,  towards  the  close  of  1548  he  openly  apostatised 
and  fled  to  the  Grisons,  where  he  placed  his  services  at 
the  disposal  of  the  Swiss  Reformers.  His  desire  to  dis- 
tinguish himself  next  caused  him  to  abandon  the  Swiss 
Zwinglians  and  to  settle  at  Tubingen.  After  many  journeys, 
undertaken  with  the  object  of  thwarting  the  Church  of  Rome, 
this  pushful  and  unrestrained  man  died  at  Tubingen  in 
1565,  still  at  enmity  with  Catholicism.1 

3.    The  Schmalkalden  Assembly  of  1537.     Luther's  Illness 

The  Schmalkalden  League,  established  in  1531  (see  above, 
p.  64  ff.),  was  in  the  main  directed  against  the  Emperor  and 
the  Empire.  It  had  grown  stronger  by  the  accession  of 
other  Princes  and  States  who  bound  themselves  to  render 
mutual  assistance  in  the  interests  of  the  innovations.  In 
the  very  year  Vergerio  started  on  his  mission  of  peace 
in  December,  1535,  the  warlike  alliance,  headed  by  Hesse 
and  the  Saxon  Electorate,  had  been  renewed  at  Schmal- 
kalden for  ten  years.  It  undertook  to  raise  10,000  foot 
soldiers  and  2000  horse  for  the  defence  of  the  Evangel,  and, 
in  case  of  need,  to  double  the  number. 

To  oppose  this  a  more  united  and  better  organised  league 
of  the  Catholics  was  imperatively  called  for  ;  the  alliance 
already  entered  into  by  some  of  the  Princes  who  remained 
true  to  the  older  Church,  required  to  be  strengthened  and 
enlarged.  In  1538  the  new  leaguers  met  at  Nuremberg ;  at 
their  head  were  Charles  V.  and  Ferdinand  the  German  King, 
while  amongst  the  most  prominent  members  were  the  Dukes 
Wilhelm  and  Ludwig  of  Bavaria  and  the  Archbishops  of 
Mayence  and  Salzburg,  whose  secular  principalities  were 
very  considerable. 

Arming  of  troops,  threats  of  war,  and  petty  broils  aroused 
apprehension  again  and  again,  but,  on  the  whole,  peace  was 
maintained  till  Luther's  death. 

The  protesting  Estates  were  desirous  of  deciding,  at  a 
convention  to  be  held  at  Schmalkalden  on  Candlemas  Day, 
1537,  upon  the  attitude  to  be  assumed  towards  the  Council 

1  On  Vergerio,  particularly  on  his  trial,  see  G.  Buschbell,  "  Reforma- 
tion und  Inquisition  in  Italien  um  die  Mitte  des  16.  Jahrh.,"  Paderborn, 
1910,  p.  103  ff. 


THE  SCHMALKALDEN  "ARTICKEL"    431 

convened  by  the  Pope  to  Mantua.  Hence,  on  August  30, 
1536,  Johann  Frederick,  Elector  of  Saxony,  instructed 
Luther  to  draw  up  a  preliminary  writing  ;  he  was  to  state 
on  Scriptural  grounds  what  he  felt  it  his  duty  to  advance 
concerning  all  the  Articles  of  his  teaching  as  though  he  were 
in  the  presence  of  a  Council  or  before  the  Judgment-Seat 
of  God,  and  also  to  point  out  those  Articles  regarding  which 
some  concessions  might  be  made  "  without  injury  to  God 
or  His  Word." 

Luther  therefore  set  to  work  on  his  "  Artickel  so  da  hetten 
sollen  auffs  Concilion  zu  Mantua,"  etc.,  duly  printed  in  1538, 
with  some  slight  alterations. 

Here,  whilst  expounding  theologically  the  various  Lutheran 
doctrines,  he  gives  his  opinion  on  the  Pope  ;  this  opinion  is  all 
the  more  remarkable  because  incorporated  in  a  document 
intended  to  be  entirely  dispassionate  and  to  furnish  the  Council 
with  a  clear  statement  of  the  new  faith.  The  Pope,  so  Luther 
declares,  is  "  merely  bishop  or  parish-priest  of  the  churches  of 
Rome  "  ;  the  universal  spiritual  authority  he  had  arrogated 
to  himself  was  "  nothing  but  devilish  fable  and  invention  "  ;  he 
roared  like  the  dragon  in  the  Apocalypse,  who  led  the  whole 
world  astray  (Apoc.  xii.  9)  ;  he  told  people  :  "  All  you  do  is  done 
in  vain  unless  you  take  me  for  your  God."  "  This  point  plainly 
proves  that  he  is  the  real  Enclchrist  and  Antichrist,  who  sets 
himself  up  against  and  above  Christ,  because  he  will  not  allow 
Christians  to  be  saved  without  his  authority.  .  .  .  This  even  the 
Turks  and  '  Tatters  '  do  not  dare  to  attempt,  great  enemies  of 
Christians  though  they  be."  "  Hence,  as  little  as  we  can  adore  the 
devil  himself,  as  Lord  and  God,  so  little  can  we  suffer  his  apostle, 
the  Pope,  or  Endchrist,  to  rule  as  our  Head  and  Lord.  For  his 
real  work  is  lying  and  murder,  and  the  eternal  destruction  of 
body  and  soul,  as  I  have  proved  at  length  in  many  books."1 

Luther  concludes  this  memorable  theological  essay  (at  least  in 
the  printed  version)  with  an  application  to  the  projected  Council  : 
1 '  If  those  who  obey  the  Evangel  attend  it,  our  party  will  be 
standing  before  the  Pope  and  the  devil  himself."  At  the  Diet  of 
Augsburg  they  stood  before  the  Empire,  "  before  the  Emperor 
and  secular  authorities,"  who  had  been  gracious  enough  to  give 
the  cause  a  hearing  ;  now,  however,  we  must  say  to  the  Pope,  as 
in  the  book  of  Zacharias  [iii.  2]  the  angel  said  to  the  devil  :  '  May 
God  rebuke  thee,  Satan.'  "2 

When  engaged  on  this  work,  and  whilst  the  Schmalkalden 
meeting  was  in  progress,  Luther  appears  to  have  been  the 
prey  of  a  perfect  paroxysm  of  fury.  Hate,  as  a  positive 
mental  disorder,  then  attained  in  him  an  acute  crisis.   Later 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  252,  p.  181  ff.  2  Ibid.,  p.  184. 


432  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

on,  his  anger  abated  for  a  while,  as  though  exhausted,  until, 
just  before  his  death,  the  spirit  of  the  storm  broke  out 
afresh  with  hurricane  violence  in  his  "  Wider  das  Bapstum 
zu  Rom  vom  Teuffel  gestifft." 

At  the  time  he  wrote  his  work  in  preparation  for  the 
Schmalkalden  meeting  he  was  already  ailing.  His  nervous 
system  was  strained  beyond  all  limit.  Hence  we  can 
more  readily  understand  the  passion  which  seems  to  possess 
him  against  that  Church  of  Rome,  which,  instead  of  collaps- 
ing, as  he  had  fondly  hoped  she  would,  was  daily  growing 
stronger  in  spite  of  all  her  losses. 

The  "  Artickel,"  which  were  submitted  to  Johann 
Frederick  the  Elector,  on  January  6,  1537,  were  signed 
likewise  by  Jonas,  Bugenhagen,  Cruciger,  and  Melanchthon. 
Melanchthon,  however,  because  the  abuse  of  the  Pope  did 
not  meet  with  his  approval  and  was  scarcely  to  be  squared 
with  his  previous  temporising  assurances,  added  that,  he, 
for  his  part,  was  ready,  "  in  the  interests  of  peace  and  the 
common  unity  of  those  Christians  who  are  now  subject  to 
him  and  may  be  so  in  the  future,"  to  admit  the  Pope's 
supremacy  over  the  bishops  ;  but  the  Pope  was  to  hold  his 
office  only  by  "  human  right  "  and  "in  as  far  as  he  was 
willing  to  admit  the  Evangel."  Johann  Frederick  was 
sufficiently  clear-sighted  to  see  through  this  proposal — so 
typical  of  Melanchthon — and  to  recognise  in  it  a  vain 
attempt  to  square  the  circle.  He  expressed  his  disapproval 
of  the  addition,  pointing  out  that  any  recognition  of  the 
Papacy  would  involve  a  return  to  the  old  bondage.  The 
Pope  "  and  his  successors  would  leave  no  stone  unturned  to 
destroy  and  root  out  us  and  our  successors." 

The  opinion  of  the  Elector  prevailed  in  the  Council  of 
the  Princes  and  among  the  preachers  assembled  at  Schmal- 
kalden. 

For  all  their  exasperation  against  the  Pope,  Luther,  and 
the  Wittenberg  theologians,  were  not  averse  to  taking  part 
in  the  Council.  Luther,  for  instance,  opined,  that  they 
ought  not  to  give  the  Papists  an  excuse  for  saying  they  had 
made  impossible  the  holding  of  a  Council.1  In  a  memo- 
randum of  December  6,  1536,  the  theologians,  with  Luther 
and  Amsdorf,  advised  that  the  Council  should  be  promoted, 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed„  55,  p.  168  ;  also  "  Briefe,"  ed.  De  Wette,,5, 
p.  51  ft.  "  Brief wechsel,"  11,  p.  202.    Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  385. 


H 


THE  SCHMALKALDEN  "ARTICKEL"     433 

so  as  to  render  possible  a  protest.  The  proposal  of  the 
Elector  to  hold  an  opposition  Council  they  rejected,  urging 
that  such  a  Council  would  "  look  terribly  like  establishing  a 
schism  "  ;  moreover,  the  lack  of  agreement  among  themselves 
would  permit  of  no  such  thing,  for  they  would  be  exposing 
themselves  to  the  contempt  of  their  opponents,  and  holding 
back  foreign  countries  from  joining  the  Evangel.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  authorities  to  offer  resist- 
ance in  the  interests  of  their  subjects  and  Divine  worship, 
should  the  Council  prove  unjust ;  open  violence  and 
notorious  injustice  were  to  be  met  by  violence.1  In  this 
memorandum  Melanchthon's  influence  is  clear  enough  in  the 
apprehension  of  any  appearance  of  setting  up  a  "  schism." 
Luther  signed  it  with  the  words  :  "I,  Martin  Luther,  will 
do  my  best  by  prayer,  and  if  needs  be,  with  the  fist."2  The 
Schmalkalden  delegates,  however,  as  we  shall  see  below, 
strode  rough-shod  over  this  memorandum  and  declined  to 
have  anything  to  do  with  the  Council. 

On  January  31,  1537,  Luther,  with  Melanchthon  and 
Bugenhagen,  set  out  for  Schmalkalden  where  a  Papal  envoy, 
the  Bishop  of  Acqui,  was  also  expected.  On  the  journey  he 
said  in  the  presence  of  several  gentlemen  of  the  Nuncio's 
retinue  :  "So  the  devil  is  sending  the  Papal  emissary  as  his 
ambassador  to  Schmalkalden  to  see  if,  perchance,  he  can 
destroy  God's  work."  Besides  the  secular  delegates,  some 
forty  Protestant  theologians  had  gathered  at  Schmalkalden, 
and  Melanchthon  was  in  the  greatest  apprehension  lest 
quarrels  should  break  out  amongst  them.3  His  fears  were 
not  altogether  groundless,  for  it  was  not  long  before  the 
usual  want  of  unanimity  became  apparent  amongst  the 
Lutheran  preachers.  The  "  Artickel,"  drawn  up  by  Luther, 
aroused  dissension.  They  were  not  equally  acceptable  to 
all,  some,  for  instance,  taking  offence  at  his  teaching  on  the 
Supper,  so  that  a  controversy  on  this  point  between  such 
men  as  Amsdorf  and  Osiander  on  the  one  side  and  Blaurer 
on  the  other,  was  to  be  feared.  Melanchthon,  however,  was 
more  cautious  and  avoided  insisting  on  his  own  divergent 

1  "  Corp.  ref.,"  3,  p.  126  seq.     "  Brief wechsel,"  11,  p.  137. 

2  Seckendorf  ("  Comment  de  Lutheranismo,"  3,  p.  145)  says  of  the 
words  "  with  the  fist  "  :  "  id  est  calamo."  This  is  confirmed  by  a 
statement  of  Luther's,  according  to  which  he  was  determined  to 
write  against  the  "  Romish  beast  "  with  an  even  stronger  fist  (below, 
p.  437). 

3  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  384. 

III. — 2   F 


434  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

view  regarding  the  Eucharist.  He  and  Cruciger  were 
sternly  charged  by  Cordatus,  the  minister,  with  not  preach- 
ing aright  Luther's  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith,  and 
the  charge  was  supported  also  by  Amsdorf.  Osiander,  the 
Nuremberg  theologian,  finally  set  against  a  sermon  of 
Luther's  on  the  divine  sonship  conferred  on  the  Christian 
by  faith  in  Christ  (1  John  iv.  1  ff.),  a  sermon  of  his  own, 
embodying  quite  other  views. 

Luther  could  think  of  no  better  plan  than  to  lay  before  the 
Elector  his  fears  lest  internal  strife  should  prove  the  un- 
doing of  his  whole  enterprise,  and  to  implore  him,  as  father 
of  the  country,  to  take  some  steps  to  prevent  this. 

Owing  to  the  disunion  rife  among  the  preachers,  Luther's 
"  Artickel  "  were  never  officially  discussed  by  the  delegates. 
This  was  primarily  Melanchthon's  doing  ;  by  means  of  an 
intrigue  which  he  started  at  the  very  outset  of  the  Confer- 
ence, and  thanks  to  the  assistance  of  the  Landgrave  of 
Hesse,  he  had  caused  it  to  be  settled  behind  Luther's 
back,  that  no  explicit  acceptance  of  Luther's  exposition  of 
faith  was  called  for,  seeing  that  the  Estates  had  already 
taken  their  stand  on  the  basis  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
and  the  Wittenberg  Concord.  "  The  device  was  character- 
istic enough  of  Melanchthon,  but  his  procedure  as  a  whole 
can  scarcely  be  acquitted  of  insincerity."    (Ellinger.) 

Melanchthon  was  now  entrusted  with  the  preparation  of 
a  fresh  work  on  the  Papal  Primacy,  to  be  described  more 
fully  later.1  Although  it  far  exceeds  in  malice  any  other 
work  of  Melanchthon's,  or  perhaps  for  that  very  reason,  it 
was  accepted  by  the  Princes  and  the  theologians. 

The  truth  is,  that,  in  their  hostility  to  Popery  all  were  at 
one.  Opposition  to  the  Church  was  the  bond  which  united 
them. 

Meanwhile,  whilst  at  Schmalkalden,  Luther  had  been 
visited  by .  a  severe  attack  of  stone,  an  old  trouble  which 
now  seemed  to  put  his  life  in  danger.  During  this  illness 
his  hatred  of  the  Pope  broke  out  afresh,  yet,  later,  he  felt 
justified  in  boasting  of  the  moderation  he  had  displayed 
during  the  convention,  because,  forsooth,  of  his  advice 
regarding  attendance  at  the  Council.  He  prides  himself  on 
the  consideration  which  at  Schmalkalden  he  had  shown 

1  See  below,  p.  439. 


LUTHER'S   ILLNESS  435 

the  Papists  :  "  Had  I  died  there,  it  would  probably  have 
been  the  ruin  of  the  Papists,  for  only  after  I  am  dead  will 
they  see  what  a  friend  they  have  had  in  me  ;  for  other 
preachers  will  prove  incapable  of  the  same  moderation  and 
1  epieikeia.'  *n 

Luther's  illness  increased  to  such  an  extent  that  fears 
were  entertained  for  his  life.  He  himself  thought  seriously 
of  death,  though  never  for  an  instant  did  he  think  of  recon- 
ciliation. 

His  prayer,  as  he  related  later,  was  as  follows  :  "  O  God,  Thou 
knowest  that  I  have  taught  Thy  Word  faithfully  and  zealously. 
.  .  .  O  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  how  grand  a  thing  is  it  for  a  man  to  die 
by  the  sword  for  Thy  Word.  ...  I  die  as  an  enemy  of  Thine 
enemies,  I  die  under  the  ban  of  the  Pope,  but  he  dies  under 
Thy  ban.  ...  I  die  in  hatred  of  the  Pope  ('  ego  morior  in  odio 
papce')."2  "Thou,  Lord  Christ,"  he  said,  "take  vengeance 
upon  Thine* enemy  ;  I  have  done  well  in  tearing  the  Pope  to 
pieces."  On  February  25,  when  racked  with  pain,  he  said  to 
Herr  von  Ponikau,  one  of  the  Elector's  chamberlains  :  "I  have 
to  be  stoned  like  Stephen,  and  the  Pope  will  rejoice.  But  I  hope 
he  will  not  laugh  long  ;  my  epitaph  shall  be  verified  :  '  In  life, 
O  Pope,  I  was  thy  plague,  in  dying  I  shall  be  thy  death  ('  Pestis 
eram  vivus,  moriens  ero  mors  taa,  Papa  ').'  "3 

On  February  26  the  sick  man  was  brought  away  from  Schmal- 
kalden  in  a  carriage,  the  intention  being  to  convey  him  to  Witten- 
berg. Luther  was  anxious  not  to  rejoice  the  Papists  by  breathing 
his  last  in  a  locality  where  the  Bishop  of  Acqui,  the  Papal  envoy,  was 
stopping.  "At  least  not  in  the  presence  of  the  monster,  the  Pope's 
ambassador,"  as  he  said.  "  I  would  die  willingly  enough  were 
not  the  devil's  Legate  at  Schmalkalden,  for  he  would  cry  aloud 
to  the  whole  world  that  I  had  died  of  fright."  This  he  said  before 
Ins  departure.  * .  Seated  in  the  carriage  as  the  horses  were  being 
got  ready,  he  received  the  greetings  of  those  present  and  made 
the  sign  of  the  cross  over  them,  saying :'  "May  the  Lord  fill  you 
with  His  blessing  and  with  hatred  of  the  Pope."5  Mathesius,  his 
pupil,  adds  in  his  11th  Sermon  on  Luther  :  "  Then  and  there,  in 
the  carriage,  he  made  his  last  will  and  testament,  willing  and 
bequeathing  to  his  friends  the  preachers,  '  odium  in  papam,'  viz. 
that  they  should  not  allow  themselves  to  be  deceived  by  the 
Pope's  doctrine  but  remain  constant  to  the  end  in  their  hostility 
to  his  idolatry."6  According  to  Ericeus  he  also  said  on  leaving  : 
"  Take  heed  to  this  when  I  am  dead  :  If  the  Pope  lays  aside  his 
crown,  renounces  his  throne  and  primacy,  and  admits  that  he  has 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  61,  p.  413  ("  Tischreden  ").  Cp.  "  Colloq.," 
ed.  Bindseil,  3,  p.  169. 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  61,  p.  436.  3  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  389. 
*  Ibid., -p.  390  f.                                        5  Ibid. 

6  Mathesius,   "  Historien,"  p.   130'. 


436  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

erred  and  destroyed  the  Church,  then  and  only  then  will  we 
receive  him  into  our  communion,  otherwise  he  will  always 
remain  in  our  eyes  the  real  Antichrist."1 

After  Luther's  departure  the  assembly  considered  the 
question  of  the  Council.  Any  share  in  it  was  refused  point- 
blank.  Even  the  letters  on  the  subject  which  the  Legate 
had  brought  with  him  were  returned  unopened.  In  the 
final  resolution  the  proposed  (Ecumenical  Council — although 
it  was  to  be  held  in  complete  accordance  with  ancient 
ecclesiastical  rules — was  described  as  a  partisan,  unreliable 
and  unlawful  assembly  because  it  would  consist  exclusively 
of  bishops,  would  be  presided  over  by  the  Pope  and  would 
not  be  free  to  decide  according  to  the  Word  of  God. 

In  its  outspoken  rejection  of  the  Council  the  Conference 
was  more  logical  than  Luther  and  his  theological  counsellors. 
The  warlike  company  brushed  aside  all  the  considerations 
of  prudence  and  policy  alleged  by  the  more  timid  theologians. 

They  further  declared,  that  they  would  maintain  the 
Wittenberg  Concord  of  1536  ;  it  was  also  stated  in  the 
resolutions  that  their  theologians  were  agreed  upon  all  the 
points  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  "  Apologia  "  ;  one 
article  only,  viz.  that  concerning  the  authority  of  the  Pope, 
had  they  altered  ;  in  other  words,  they  had  accepted  the 
recently  drafted  document  of  Melanchthon's,  which,  how- 
ever, repudiated  the  Papacy  far  more  firmly  than  the 
Augsburg  Confession  had  done.    (See  below,  p.  439.) 

Luther,  though  absent,  had  every  reason  to  be  satisfied 
with  what  had  been  achieved, 

Luther's  condition  had  meanwhile  improved,  and  he  had 
already  returned  to  Wittenberg.  On  the  very  first  day  of 
his  journey  he  had  felt  some  relief,  and  on  the  following  day 
he  wrote  to  Melanchthon  to  inform  him  of  it,  crowning  the 
joyful  tidings  with  his  blessing  : 

"  May  God  preserve  you  all  and  cast  down  Satan  under  your 
feet  with  all  his  crew,  viz.  the  monsters  of  the  Roman  Curia."2 

On  his  arrival  at  Gotha,  the  journey  having  proved  toilsome 
and  exhausting,  and  the  malady  again  threatening  to  grow  worse, 
he  made  his  so-called  "  First  Will."  It  commences  with  the 
words  :  "  I  know,  God  be  praised,  that  I  have  done  rightly  in 
storming  the  Papacy  with  the  Word  of  God,  for  Popery  spells 

1  N.  Ericeus  in  the  Sylvula  MS.,  p.  202' ;  "  Briefe,"  ed.  De  Wette,  C, 
p.  186,  n. 

2  "  Briefe,"  ed.  De  Wette,  4,  p.  58. 


LUTHER'S   ILLNESS  437 

blasphemy  against  God,  Christ  and  the  Gospel."  In  his  name 
they  were  to  tell  the  Elector,  our  sovereign,  and  also  the  Land- 
grave, that  "  they  were  not  to  allow  themselves  to  be  disturbed 
at  the  howls  of  their  opponents,  who  charged  them  with  stealing 
the  possessions  of  the  Church  ;  they  do  not  rob  like  some  others 
do  ;  indeed,  I  see  [such  at  least  was  his  hope]  how,  with  these 
goods,  they  provide  for  the  welfare  of  religion.  If  a  little  of  it 
falls  to  their  share,  who  has  a  better  right  to  it  than  they  ?  Such 
possessions  belong  to  the  Princes  rather  than  to  the  rascally 
Papists.  Both  sovereigns  were  to  do  confidently  on  behalf  of 
the  Evangel  whatever  the  Holy  Ghost  inspired  them  to  do.  .  .  . 
If  they  are  not  pure  in  all  things,  but  in  some  respects  sinners, 
as  our  foes  allege,  yet  they  must  trust  in  God's  mercy.  ...  I  am 
now  ready  to  die  if  the  Lord  so  will,  but  I  should  like  to  live  at 
least  till  Whitsun,  in  order,  before  all  the  world,  to  write  against 
the  Roman  beast  and  its  Kingdom  with  a  heavier  fist.  ...  If 
I  recover  I  intend  to  do  far  worse  than  ever  before.  And  now  I 
commend  my  soul  into  the  hands  of  the  Father  and  my  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  Whom  I  have  preached  and  confessed  upon  earth."1 
His  friends  related  that  at  Gotha  he  made  his  confession,  and 
received  "  absolution  "  from  Bugenhagen.  After  his  state  of 
health  had  greatly  improved  he  was  able  to  continue  his  journey 
to  Wittenberg,  where  he  arrived  safely.  Thence,  a  week  later,  he 
was  able  to  announce  to  Spalatin  the  progress  of  his  "  convales- 
cence, by  God's  grace,"  commending  himself  likewise  to  his 
prayers.2 

His  anger  against  the  Pope,  to  which  hitherto  he  had  not 
been  able  to  give  free  rein,  he  now  utilised  to  stimulate  and 
refresh  his  exhausted  bodily  and  mental  powers.  He  once 
said,  that,  to  write,  pray  or  preach  well,  he  had  first  to  be 
angry.  In  Mathesius  we  find  Luther's  own  description  of  the 
effects  of  his  anger  :  "  Then  my  blood  is  refreshed,  my  mind 
becomes  keen  and  all  my  temptations  vanish."3 

Here  we  must  revert  once  more  to  his  maledictory  prayer 
against  the  Pope  and  the  Papists,  and  to  certain  other  of  his 
sayings.4 

"  If  I  am  so  cold  at  heart  that  I  cannot  pray,"  so  he  said  on  one 
occasion  to  Cordatus,  "  I  call  to  mind  the  impiety  and  ingratitude 
of  my  foes,  the  Pope  and  King  Ferdinand,  in  order  to  inflame  my 
heart  with  righteous  hate,  so  that  I  can  say  :  Hallowed  be  Thy 
Name,  etc.,  and  then  my  prayer  glows  with  fervour."5  As  given 
in  the  German  edition  of  the  Table-Talk,  his  words  are  briefer, 
but  none  the  less  striking  :  "I  conjure  up  the  godlessness  ot  the 
Pope  with  all  his  ulcers  and  parasites,  and  soon  I  grow  warm  and 

1  "Briefe,"  ed.  De  Wette,  6,  p.  185.  2  Ibid.,   5,  p.   59. 

3  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  200.  *  Cp.  above,  p.  208  f. 

5  "Tagebuch,"  p.  111. 


438  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

burn  with  anger  and  hate."1  As  already  related,  in  his  male- 
dictory Paternoster,  he  accompanies  the  petitions  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer  with  a  commentary  of  curses.2  He  would  fain  see  others 
too,  "  cursing  the  Papacy  with  the  Our  Father,  that  it  may 
catch  St.  Vitus's  Dance."3  Concerning  his  Paternoster  he 
assures  us,  "  I  say  this  prayer  daily  with  my  lips,  and  in  my 
heart  without  intermission."  And  yet  he  does  not  shrink  from 
adding  :  "  Nevertheless  I  preserve  a  friendly,  peaceable  and 
Christian  spirit  towards  everyone  ;  this  even  my  greatest 
enemies  know."4 

In  1538,  the  year  after  his  serious  illness,  an  amended  edition 
of  his  "  LTnterricht  der  Visitatorn  an  die  Pharhern  "  was  issued 
by  him.  Although  he  exhorts  the  pastors  to  "  refrain  from 
abusive  language  "  in  the  pulpit,  yet  he  expressly  tells  them  to 
"  damn  the  Papacy  and  its  followers  with  all  earnestness  as 
already  damned  by  God,  like  the  devil  and  his  kingdom."5 

Luther's  character  presents  many  psychological  problems 
which  seem  to  involve  the  observer  in  inextricable  difficulty  ; 
certain  phenomena  of  his  inner  life  can  scarcely  be  judged  by 
common  standards.  The  idea  of  the  devil  incarnate  in  Popery 
distorts  his  judgment,  commits  him  to  statements  of  the  maddest 
kind,  and  infects  even  his  moral  conduct.  It  is  not  easy  to  say 
how  far  he  remained  a  free  agent  in  this  matter,  or  whether  the 
quondam  Catholic,  priest  and  monk  never  felt  the  prick  of  con- 
science, yet  such  questions  obtrude  themselves  at  every  step. 
For  the  present  we  shall  merely  say  that  his  freedom,  and  con- 
sequently his  actual  responsibility,  were  greater  at  the  time  he 
first  gave  such  ideas  a  footing  in  his  mind,  than  when  he  had 
fallen  completely  under  their  spell.6 

4.    Luther's  Spirit  in  Melanchthon 

During  the  spring  of  1537,  when  Luther  was  at  Schmal- 
kalden  writhing  under  bodily  anguish  and  the  influence  of 
his  paroxysm  of  hate,  a  notable  change  took  place  in 
Melanchthon's  attitude  towards  the  older  Church.  The 
earlier  spiritual  crisis,  if  we  may  speak  of  such  a  thing, 
ended  in  his  case  in  an  almost  inexplicable  embitterment 
against  the  Church  of  his  birth. 

A  proof  of  this  is  more  particularly  to  be  found  in  the 
document  then  drawn  up  by  Melanchthon,  "  On  the  power 
and  primacy  of  the  Pope."7 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  60,  p.  61 ;  cp.  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  2,  p.  294. 

2  Ibid.,  252,  p.  254,  128. 

3  To  Caspar  Miiller,  January  10,  1536,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  55,  p. 
120  ("  Brief wechsel,"  10,  p.  291). 

4  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30,  3,  p.  470  ;   Erl.  ed.,  252,  p.  128. 

5  Ibid.,  23.  p.  57.  6  See  vol.  vi.,  xxxvi. 

7  "  Symbolische  Bucher,"  p.  328  ff.     "  Corp.  ref.,"  3,  p.  272  seq. 


MELANCHTHON  439 

But  a  short  time  before  he  had  looked  upon  the  declara- 
tion against  the  Pope,  drafted  by  Luther  for  the  Schmal- 
kalden  Conference,  as  too  strong.  Yet,  after  having,  as 
related  above,1  all  unknown  to  Luther,  contrived  to  prevent 
any  discussion  of  the  latter' s  so-called  "  Artickel,"  and 
having,  at  the  request  of  the  Princes  and  Estates,  set  to 
work  on  a  statement  concerning  the  Primacy  and  the 
Episcopate,  he  himself  came  gradually,  perhaps  without 
noticing  it,  under  the  influence  of  the  passion  of  antipopery 
which  found  expression  at  this  Assembly. 

In  Melanchthon's  Schmalkalden  writing  "  On  the  Power  and 
Primacy,"  we  read,  that  "  the  Popes  defend  godless  rites  and 
idolatry "  ;  they  had  introduced  horrible  darkness  into  the 
Church.  "  The  marks  of  Antichrist  agree  with  the  empire  of  the 
Pope,"  as  is  plain  from  Paul.2  "  The  Pope  arrogates  to  himself 
the  right  to  alter  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  .  .  .  He  even  claims 
rights  over  the  souls  of  the  departed."  "  He  makes  himself  God," 
for  he  recognises  no  authority  above  him.  "  These  errors  he 
vindicates  with  the  utmost  cruelty  .  .  .  slaying  all  who  differ 
from  him."  All  the  faithful  must  therefore  "  curse  "  him  and 
regard  his  teaching  as  "  devils'  doctrine." 

After  this  profession  of  pure  doctrine  comes  the  chapter  on 
abuses.3  "The  profanation  of  Masses,"  amongst  the  Papists, 
"  is  idolatry  "  ;  the  "  most  revolting  money-making  "  is  carried 
on  by  this  means.  "  They  teach  that  sin  is  forgiven  on  account 
of  the  value  of  our  works  and  then  require  each  one  to  be  ever 
in  doubt  as  to  whether  his  sins  have  really  been  forgiven. 
Nowhere  do  they  clearly  say  that  it  is  on  account  of  the  merits  of 
Christ  that  sins  are  forgiven  gratuitously.  On  the  other  hand, 
they  do  away  with  true  worship,  viz.  the  exercise  of  that  faith 
which  wrestles  with  despair."4  "Vows  they  have  stamped  as 
righteousness  before  God,  declaring  that  they  merit  the  forgiveness 
of  sins."  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Christian  Princes  to  intervene  ; 
they  must  see  that  "  errors  are  removed  and  consciences  healed." 
They  "  must  not  assist  in  strengthening  idolatry  and  other 
infamies,  or  in  slaughtering  the  Saints."  They,  beyond  all  others, 
"  must  place  a  check  on  the  licentiousness  of  the  Popes,"  the 
more  so  "since  the  Pope  has  bound  the  bishops  under  terrible 
curses  to  support  his  tyranny  and  his  godless  behaviour." 

A  shorter  memorandum  of  Melanchthon's,   appended  to  the 

1  See  above,  p.  434. 

2  "  Symbolische  Bucher,"  p.  336 ;  in  n.  39  and  40,  the  thesis  that  the 
Pope  is  Antichrist  is  proved  syllogistically  from  2  Thessalonians 
ii.  3  f.  :  "  Plane  notce  antichristi  competunt  in  regnum  papce  et  sua 
membra."  3  Page  337  f. 

4  "  Abolent  veros  cultus,  videlicet  exercitia  fidei  luctantia  cum  des- 
peratione."  See  above,  p.  345,  how  Melanchthon  frequently  emphasises 
the  terrors  which  precede  the  working  of  the  evangelical  faith. 


440  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

above,  referred  to  the  "  Power  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishops."1 
This  in  the  clearest  and  most  decided  fashion  marks  the  break- 
down of  all  the  author's  earlier  seeming  concessions  concerning 
the  retention  of  the  episcopate.  "  Since  the  bishops,"  he  says 
towards  the  close,  "  in  their  dependence  on  the  Pope  defend  his 
godless  doctrine  and  godless  worship  .  .  .  second  the  Pope's 
cruelty  and  tyrannically  abuse  the  jurisdiction  they  have 
wrenched  from  the  clergy  .  .  .  the  churches  must  not  acknow- 
ledge them  as  bishops." 

At  the  end  there  is1  a  hint  at  the  wealth  of  the  bishops,  doubt- 
less not  unwelcome  to  the  Princes  :  "  The  bishops  can  no  longer 
hold  their  lands  and  revenues  with  a  good  conscience  "  because 
they  do  not  make  use  of  them  for  the  good  of  souls  ;  their  pos- 
sessions ought  rather  to  be  employed  "  for  the  Church,"  "  to 
provide  for  the  preachers  [ministers],  to  support  students  and 
the  poor,  and  in  particular  to  assist  the  law-courts,  especially 
the  matrimonial  courts."  Here  we  have  his  sanction  to  the 
Church's  spoliation. 

We  may  be  certain  that  Melanchthon  never  came  to  use 
such  language,  so  similar  to  Luther's,  concerning  the  Papal 
Antichrist,  idolatry  and  murder,  solely  as  the  result  of 
pressure  on  the  part  of  the  Princes,  who  had  been  enraged 
by  the  invitation  to  attend  the  Council,  and  were  determined 
to  crush  once  and  for  all  every  hope  of  conciliation.  We  may 
take  it  that  his  new  frame  of  mind  was  partly  due  to  Luther's 
serious  illness.  Luther  believed  that  his  end  was  nigh,  he 
adjured  the  Princes  and  his  friends  manfully  to  tackle 
Antichrist,  and  he  cursed  the  dissensions  that  had  broken 
out  amongst  his  theologians,  and  promised  soon  to  ruin  his 
life's  work.  This  made  a  great  impression  on  Melanchthon. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  the  relations  between  him  and  Luther, 
subsequent  to  the  latter's  recovery,  became  closer  than 
they  had  been  for  years. 

The  change  in  Melanchthon  at  Schmalkalden  was  im- 
mortalised by  his  frightful  document  on  the  Pope  and  the 
Bishops  being  subscribed  to  by  thirty-two  of  the  theologians 
and  preachers  there  present.2     When,  at  a  later  date,  the 

1  Page  340  ff. 

2  Kolde,  in  the  Introduction  to  the  10th  edition  of  the  "  Sym- 
bolische  Bucher,"  p.  1.  "  This  was  the  only  official  Confession 
agreed  to  at  the  Schmalkalden  Convention."  When  Luther  caused  his 
bitter  "  Artickel  " — which  had  not  been  accepted  at  Schmalkalden  at  all 
(above,  p.  431)— to  be  printed  in  1538  ("  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  252, 
p.  163  ff.),  he  nevertheless  spoke  of  them  as  an  official  deed  agreed  to 
at  the  Schmalkalden  Convention,  declaring  :  "  They  have  also  been 
agreed  upon  unanimously  by  our  followers  and  accepted,  so  that — 


MELANCHTHON  441 

formulae  of  Concord  were  drawn  up,  it  was  included  amongst 
the  "  symbolical  books  "  of  Lutheranism.1  As  such,  along 
with  the  others,  it  appears  down  to  the  present  day,  even  in 
the  latest  edition  (1907),  at  the  head  of  which  is  printed  the 
traditional  motto  of  the  whole  series  :  "  One  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  Baptism  "  (Eph.  iv.  5). 

At  the  Schmalkalden  Conference,  Melanchthon,  in  spite 
of  what  he  had  written  concerning  the  Pope,  declared  him- 
self, like  Luther,  in  favour  of  accepting  with  due  reserves 
the  invitation  to  the  Council,  as  otherwise  they  would  be 
rendering  their  position  more  difficult  and  would  make  the 
whole  world  think  that  they  had  rudely  refused  the  olive- 
branch.  The  rejection  of  his  proposal  annoyed  him,  as  also 
did  the  discourteous  treatment — described  by  Melanchthon 
as  "  very  vulgar  " — which  the  Papal  Legate  endured  at  the 
hands  of  the  Elector  Johann  Frederick.  His  lit  of  indigna- 
tion does  not,  however,  seem  to  have  lasted  long,  as  he  did 
not  refuse  the  invitation  to  draw  up  a  statement,  addressed 
in  the  name  of  the  Assembly  to  all  Christian  Princes,  in 
which  the  Council  was  repudiated  in  the  strongest  terms. 
The  refusal  to  take  any  part  in  it,  so  it  declares,  was  rendered 
imperative  by  the  clear  intention  of  the  Pope  to  suppress 
heresy.2 

His  hostility  and  his  irritation  against  the  Papacy  re- 
peatedly found  expression  in  after  years. 

It  was  quite  in  Luther's  style,  when,  in  a  little  work  which 
appeared  at  Wittenberg  in  1539,  he  called  the  Pope,  with 
his  bishops  and  defenders,  "  the  tyrants  and  persecutors  of 
Christ,"  who  "  are  not  the  Church  ;  neither  are  those  who 
support  them  or  approve  such  acts  of  violence."3 

were  the  Pope  and  his  adherents  ever  so  bold  as  to  hold  a  Council, 
without  lying  and  deceit  but  in  all  sincerity  and  truth,  as  he  ought 
to  do — these  Articles  ought  to  be  publicly  put  forward  as  the  confession 
of  our  faith."  Was  he  really  ignorant  of  the  actual  facts  of  the  case  ? 
It  was  surely  to  his  interest,  after  the  Conference  of  Schmalkalden,  to 
inform  himself  exactly  of  the  fate  of  his  Articles.  Kolde,  ibid.,  p.  61, 
is  of  opinion  that  he  evidently  made  the  above  assertion  "  in  ignorance 
of  the  negotiations  which  had  taken  place  at  Schmalkalden  during  his 
illness."  Kolde,  moreover,  shows  that  Luther's  publication  did  not 
even  agree  with  the  original  as  "  presented  at  Schmalkalden  "  ;  but 
contained  various  additions,  some  of  them  of  considerable  length," 
though  "  without  any  alteration  of  meaning." 

1  "  Symbolische  Bucher,"  ibid.,  p.  xlix.  f. 

2  Ellinger,  ibid.,  p.  346. 

3  "  De  ecclesice  autoritate  et  de  veterum  scriptis."  Kawerau,  "  Ver- 
suche,"  p.  50. 

III.— 2  F  2 


442  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

Before  the  War  of  Schmalkalden  he  republished  several  times 
Luther's  inflammatory  pamphlet,  "  Warnunge  an  seine  lieben 
Deudschen,"  of  1531  (see  vol.  ii.,  p.  391)?  in  order  to  move  public 
opinion  against  the  Empire.  To  these  new  editions  of  the 
booklet  against  the  Popish  "  bloodhounds  "x — one  of  the  most 
violent  the  author  ever  wrote  —  Melanchthon  added  a  preface 
in  which  he  shows  himself  "animated  and  carried  away  by 
Luther's  words."2  In  reading  it  we  feel  the  warmth  of  the  fiery 
spirit  which  glows  in  Luther's  writings,  for  instance,  when  he 
classes  his  opponents  with  the  "  cut-throats  of  the  streets," 
whom  "to  resist  was  a  work  well-pleasing  to  God."3  The  Pope, 
according  to  him,  is  anxious  "  to  re-establish  his  idolatry  and  his 
errors  by  dint  of  bloodshed,  murder,  everlasting  devastation  of 
the  German  nation  and  the  destruction  of  the  Electoral  and 
Princely  houses."  Thus  "  Spaniards  and  Italians,  and  perhaps 
even  possibly  the  Turks,"  will  break  into  the  German  cities.  "  The 
devils  rage  and  cause  all  manner  of  desolation."  Our  enemies 
are  "  knowingly  persecutors  of  the  truth  and  murderers  of  the 
Saints."  Whoever  is  about  to  die  let  him  consider,  that  the 
death  of  the  righteous  is  more  pleasing  to  God  than  "  the  life 
of  Cain  and  the  luxury  and  power  of  all  the  bishops  and 
cardinals." 

Hence  it  was  but  natural  that  violent  measures  of  defence 
should  appear  to  Melanchthon  both  called-for  and  meritorious. 

As  a  just  measure  of  defence  and  resistance  he  regarded  his 
own  suggestion  made  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony  through  his 
Chancellor  on  the  occasion  of  the  Protestantising  of  the  town 
of  Halle,  the  residence  of  Albert  of  Brandenburg,  viz.  that 
Albert's  whole  diocese  of  Halle  and  Magdeburg  should  be  taken 
possession  of  by  the  Elector.  Owing  to  Luther's  dissuasion  this 
act  of  violence,  which  would  have  had  momentous  consequences, 
was,  however,  prevented.  Melanchthon's  advice  was,  that  they 
"  should,  as  opportunity  arose,  seize  the  bishoprics,  in  order  that 
the  priests  might  be  emboldened  to  abstain  from  knavish 
practices,  to  co-operate  in  bringing  about  a  lasting  peace,  and  to 
leave  the  Word  of  God  unmolested  for  the  future."4 

In  this  way  Melanchthon  more  than  once  gave  the  lie  to 
those  who  extol  his  kindliness.  Luther  once  said,  that, 
whereas  he  stabbed  with  a  hog-spear,  Philip  preferred  to 
use  goads  and  needles,  though  his  little  punctures  turned 
out  more  painful  and  difficult  to  heal ;  the  "  little  man  " 
(Melanchthon  was  of  small  stature)  was  pious,  and,  even 
when  he  did  wrong,  meant  no  ill ;  he  sinned  because  he  was 
too  lenient  and  allowed  himself  to  be  taken  in  ;    but  this 

1  One  of  the  terms  there  used  by  Luther  ;  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  30, 
3,  p.  282  ;    Erl.  ed.,  252,  p.  12. 

2  Ellinger,  ibid.,  p.  527,  on  the  preface  of  1546,  reprinted  in  "  Corp, 
ref.,"  6,  p.  190  seq. 

3  Ellinger,  ibid.,  p.  528.  4  Ibid.,  p.  416,  in  1541. 


MELANCHTHON  443 

sort  of  thing  was  of  little  use  ;  he,  on  the  other  hand, 
thought  it  best  to  speak  out  to  the  knaves  ;  for  clods  a 
pick-axe  wasjvery  useful ;  Philip  allowed  himself  to  be 
devoured,  but  he,  on  the  contrary,  devoured  everything 
and  spared  no  one.1 

In  his  controversial  writings  and  memoranda,  written  in 
well-turned  and  polished  language,  Melanchthon  went  on  as 
before  to  accuse  the  Catholic  theologians  and  the  Popes  of 
holding  doctrines  and  opinions,  of  which,  as  Dollinger 
rightly  said,  "  no  theologian  had  ever  thought,  but  the 
opposite  of  which  all  had  taught."2 

He  refused  to  recognise  what  was  good  and  just  in  the 
long-looked-for  proposals  for  the  amelioration  of  the  Church 
which  the  Papal  commission  submitted  to  Paul  III.  in  1537. 
They  were  made  known  at  Wittenberg  through  their  publi- 
cation by  Johann  Sturm  of  Strasburg. 

Luther  at  once  took  the  field  against  them  with  his 
favourite  weapons,  the  "  pick-axe  "  and  the  "  hog-spear."3 
Melanchthon  mentions  them,  but  has  "  not  a  word  to  say  in 
favour  of  the  important  reforms  they  proposed.  .  .  .  The 
fact,  however,  that  one  of  Erasmus's  writings  was  therein 
characterised  as  harmful,  incensed  him  against  Sadolet 
[one  of  the  Cardinals  whose  signatures  were  appended]." 
"  With  good  reason,  and,  from  the  schoolmaster's  point  of 
view,  quite  justly,"4  they  say  of  the  "  Colloquia  familiaria  " 
of  Erasmus,  that  "  this  book  should  be  forbidden  in  the 
schools,"  as  it  might  do  harm  to  young  minds.5  This  greatly 
displeased  Melanchthon,   himself  a  writer  on  pedagogy;6 

1  "  Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  3,  pp.  201,  203,  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2, 
p.  454  f.     Cp.  above,  p.  321. 

2  "  Die  Reformation,"  p.  280. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  252,p.  251  ff.  :  "  Ratschlag  von  der  Kirche.  .  .  . 
Mit  einer  Vorrede  und  Glosse  M.  Luthers,"  1538.  The  writing  begins  : 
"  The  Pope  with  his  wretched  Council  is  like  a  cat  with  her  kittens," 
and  concludes  (p.  277)  :  Unchastity  "  is  no  sin  at  Rome."  Yet  un- 
chastity  was  one  of  the  abuses  assailed  in  the  very  writing  which  he 
here  reprints,  which  urges  that  "  Rome  ought  to  be  the  model  and 
example  of  all  other  cities."  Of  the  ambition  prevalent  at  Rome  he 
w rites  in  his  usual  way  (p.  253)  :  "If  all  such  filth  were  to  be  stirred 
up  in  a  free  Council,  what  a  stench  there  would  be."  On  the  title-page 
he  depicts  three  cardinals  :  "  Desperate  knaves,  bent  on  cleansing  the 
Churches  with  foxes'  brushes  "  (p.  254). 

4  Kawerau,  "  Versuche,"  p.  38.  5   "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  252,  p.  272. 
6   "  Corp.  ref.,"  3,  p.  507,  to  Camerarius,  March  31,  1538  :    "  ridicula 

deliberation  in  which  Erasmus's  work  was  prohibited.  Ibid.,  p.  525,  to 
Spalatin,  May  16,  1538,  where  the  whole  of  the  proposals  for  reform  are 
called  "  illce  cardinalium  ineptice." 


444  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

and  yet  the  "  Colloquia  "  in  question  are  so  permeated  with 
indecent  elements  that  they  have  been  rightly  instanced  to 
prove  how  lax  were  the  views  then  prevalent  in  Humanistic 
circles.1  Luther  himself  strongly  disapproved  of  the 
"  Colloquia  "  of  Erasmus,  declaring  it  a  godless  book,  and 
forbidding  his  children  to  read  it ;  therein  the  author  put 
his  own  antichristian  ideas  in  the  mouths  of  others.2 
"  Erasmus,  the  scoundrel,"  he  says,  gives  vent  to  his 
contempt  for  religion  "  more  particularly  in  his  '  Colloquia.'1  "3 
"  He  is  an  incarnate  scamp,  as  is  shown  by  his  books, 
notably  by  the  '  Colloquia.'  "4 

In  the  Antinomian  controversy  at  home,  between  Johann 
Agricola  and  Luther,  it  was  Melanchthon  who  sought  by 
means  of  adroit  formulae  and  memoranda  to  achieve 
the  impossible,  viz.  to  square  Agricola' s  views  with  Luther's 
teaching  at  that  time.  In  reality  Melanchthon  was  merely 
working  for  the  success  of  his  own  milder  version  of  Luther's 
view  of  the  law,  to  which  moreover  the  latter  had  already 
given  his  assent.  To  Agricola,  Melanchthon  wrote  feelingly  : 
"  In  all  that  Luther  does  there  is  a  certain  Achillean 
violence,  of  which  you  are  not  the  only  victim."5 

On  the  outbreak  of  the  Osiander  controversy  on  Con- 
fession, the  ever-ready  Melanchthon  again  set  to  work, 
endeavouring  to  pour  oil  on  the  troubled  waters.  He 
assured  Osiander  that  "  were  I  able  to  bind  down  with  chains 
of  adamant  the  tempers  of  all  the  clergy,  I  should  assuredly 
make  this  the  goal  of  my  most  earnest  endeavour."6 

Melanchthon's  1540  edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
the  so-called  "  Confessio  variola"  was  a  good  sample  of  his 
elasticity  and  power  of  adaptation  in  the  domain  of  dogma. 
The  "  Variata  "  caused,  however,  quite  a  commotion  amongst 
the  representatives  of  the  innovations. 

In  the  "  Confessio  Variata  "  Melanchthon,  in  order  to  curry 
favour  with  the  Swiss  and  the  adherents  of  the  Tetrapolitana, 
with  whom  his  party  was  politically  leagued,  set  aside  the 
"  semblance  of  Transubstantiation  "  contained  in  the  Article 
concerning    the    Supper    (Art.    x.)    and    struck    out    the    words 

1  W.  Walther,  "  Fur  Luther,"  1906,  p.  605  f.  ;   he  quotes  at  length 
some  indecent  passages. 

2  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  346. 

3  Mathesius,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  212. 

4  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  96. 

5  Ellinger,  ibid.,  p.  371.  6  Ibid.,  p.  372. 


MELANCHTHON  445 

"  quod  corpus  et  sanguis  Christi  vere  adsint,"  as  well  as  the 
rejection  of  the  contrary  belief.  For  these  was  substituted  : 
"  Together  with  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Supper  the  com- 
municants are  shown  ['  exhibeantur '  instead  of  the  former 
'  adsint  et  distribuantur  ']  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ."  This 
was  practically  to  abandon  the  Real  Presence.  "  Neither  the 
doctrine  of  Bucer  [who  was  a  Zwinglian]  on  the  Supper,  nor  that 
of  Calvin,  is  excluded."1 

At  a  later  date,  in  1575,  Nicholas  Selnecker,  a  Leipzig  professor, 
whilst  actual  witnesses  were  yet  living,  declared  that  he  had 
been  informed  by  officials  of  high  standing  that  the  alterations 
concerning  the  Supper  in  the  "  Variata  "  were  due  to  Philip  of 
Hesse's  epistolary  representations  to  Melanchthon.  The  former 
had  held  out  the  hope  that  he,  and  also  the  Swiss,  would  accept 
the  Confession  should  his  suggestion  be  accepted.2  We  may 
call  to  mind  that  about  that  same  time,  i.e.  about  December, 
1539,  the  Landgrave  was  desirous  of  yet  another  concession  in 
his  favour,  viz.  of  sanction  for  his  bigamy,  and  that  Bucer,  who 
had  been  sent  by  him  to  Wittenberg,  threw  out  the  hint  that, 
were  permission  refused,  the  Prince  would  forsake  the  Evangelical 
cause. 

Melanchthon  also  obliterated  in  the  "  Variata"  several  other 
"  traces  of  a  too  diplomatic  attempt  to  conciliate  the  Romanists. 
.  .  .  Melanchthon's  clearer  perception  of  the  doctrine  of 
Justification  also  made  some  alteration  necessary."  The  Article 
"  De  iustificatione "  (Art.  iv.)  was  accordingly  revised,  and 
likewise  the  Article  "  De  bonis  operibus  "  (Art.  xx.),  that  both 
might  correspond  with  the  doctrine  already  embodied  in  the 
1535  edition  of  the  "  Loci."  In  Article  iv.  the  brief  "  hanc 
fidem  imputat  Deus  pro  iustitia  "  was  removed  and  replaced  by  : 
"  homines  iustos  pronuntiari,  id  est  reconciliari"  by  the  imputa- 
tion of  righteousness,  this  being  explained  at  considerable  length. 
A  new  interpretation  was  also  given  to  the  doctrine  of  good 
works,  i.e.  by  the  thesis,  that  obedience  to  the  law  is  necessary 
on  the  part  of  the  justified.3  In  conversion,  the  necessity  of 
contrition,  and  that  not  merely  passive,  previous  to  Justification 

1  Cp.  the  passage  in  the  reprint  of  the  "  Variata,"  "  Corp.  ref.," 
26,  p.  357,  with  the  same  in  the  original  Confession  ( "  Symbol.  Bucher," 10 
p.  41).  Our  quotations  are  from  Loofs,  "  Dogmengesch,"4  p.  864  f.  : 
"  In  view  of  the  new  idea  of  the  Eucharist  which  he  gradually  adopted, 
we  cannot  doubt  that  Melanchthon  was  anxious  to  leave  an  open  door 
for  future  agreement  with  the  Swiss."  Thus  Kolde,  "  Symbol. 
Bucher  "10,  Introd.,  p.  xxvi. 

2  Selnecker,  "  Hist,  narratio  de  Luthero,  postremoe,  cetatis  Elia," 
Lipsiae,  1575,  Fol.  H2  :  "  Landgravium  concepisse  optimam  spent  de 
voluntate  ipsorum  et  accessione  ad  unanimem  Augustanam  Confessionem 
amplectendam,  si  modo  improbatio  et  damnatio  sententice  ipsorum,  quam 
hactenus  habuissent,  eximeretur,  atque  hoc  ipsum.  clementer  perscripsisse 
ad  D.  Philippum  et  petiisse,  exemplaria  alia,  omissis  illis  particulis, 
imprimi."  Cp.  Kolde,  ibid.,  p.  xxv.  n.  3.  Selnecker  took  Melanchthon's 
part  in  the  theological  controversies  of  his  day. 

3  "  Corp.  ref.,"  26,  p.  367  seg. 


446  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

by  faith  is  asserted,  the  Divine  Will  that  all  men  be  saved  is 
openly  advocated,  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin  is  more  strongly 
denied  than  before.1 

In  spite  of  all  these  alterations,  which,  more  particularly  that 
concerning  the  Supper,  might  have  wounded  Luther's  suscepti- 
bilities, "  Melanchthon  was  never  reproved  on  account  of  the 
Variata  '  either  by  Luther  or  by  others  [of  the  sect]  ;  what  we 
hear  to  the  contrary  is  nothing  but  an  invention  of  the  anti- 
Philippians.  The  truth  is  that  the  '  Variata  '  was  generally 
accepted  without  question  and  made  use  of  officially,  for  instance, 
at  the  religious  conferences."2  In  January,  1541,  the  Augsburg 
Confession  was  to  be  made  the  basis  of  the  first  religious  confer- 
ence at  Worms.  When  Melanchthon  appealed  to  the  "  Variata," 
Eck  drew  particular  attention  to  the  difference  between  the  new 
and  the  old  version.  Melanchthon,  however,  insisted  on  the 
identity  of  their  contents  and  would  only  admit  that,  in  the 

Variata,"  he  had  toned  down  and  chosen  his  expressions  more 
carefully.3  As  Eck,  in  order  to  come  to  the  point,  desisted  from 
any  further  objections,  the  diversity  was  passed  over.  The 
conference,  owing  to  other  causes,  was  a  failure,  and  so  was 
the  next,  held  at  Ratisbon  in  April  of  the  same  year,  which  was 
fruitless  owing  to  Melanchthon's  own  conduct.  Calvin,  who  was 
present,  wrote  on  May  12  of  the  practices  of  the  Protestant 
leaders  :  "  Melanchthon  and  Bucer  drew  up  equivocating  and 
ambiguous  formulae  on  Transubstantiation,  seeking  to  hoodwink 
their  adversaries.  They  were  not  afraid  to  deal  in  equivocal 
phrases  though  there  is  nothing  more  mischievous."4 

In  connection  with  the  eventual  fate  of  the  "  Variata  "  we 
may  here  refer  to  the  deep  animosity  which  the  more  zealous 
Lutherans,  with  Flacius  Ulyricus  at  their  head,  displayed  towards 
Melanchthon  on  account  of  the  alterations  in  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  So  serious  did  the  rupture  become  that  the  dissen- 
sion between  the  Protestant  theologians  actually  rendered 
impossible  any  public  negotiations  with  the  Catholics.  This 
fact  proves  how  little  Melanchthon,  the  then  leader  of  the 
Protestants,  had  been  successful  in  welding  together  with 
"  chains  of  adamant  "  the  theologians  of  his  party. 

The  standpoint  of  the  amended  Confession  of  1540,  however, 
enlisted  all  Bucer's  sympathies  on  Melanchthon's  behalf. 

With   Bucer's   smooth   ways   Melanchthon   had   already 

1  Kolde  ("  Symbol.  Biicher  "10,  Einleitung,  p.  xxv.)  characterises 
the  enlarging  of  Articles  v.  and  xx.,  the  stress  laid  on  the  necessity 
of  Penance  and  good  works,  and  also  Article  xviii.  (De  libero  arbitrio) 
as  "  real  alterations,  or  at  any  rate  a  watering  down  of  their  dogmatic 
character."  "  The  chief  stumbling-block  proved,  not  indeed  then, 
but  later,  to  be  the  wording  of  Article  x.  on  the  Supper.  .  .  .  That 
it  was  here  a  question  of  a  real  change  (in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Eucharist)  should  never  have  been  denied." 

2  Loofs,  ibid.,  p.  865  seq. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  905. 

4  See  Janssen,  "  Hist,  of  the  German  People  "  (Eng.  Trans.,  6,  p.  147). 


MELANCHTHON  447 

found  himself  in  harmony  during  the  negotiations  in  view 
of  the  Wittenberg  Concord.  Mentally  the  two  had  much 
in  common.  Melanchthon  had  worked  with  Bucer  at  Bonn 
in  1543,  making  use  of  every  kind  of  theological  artifice 
and  enlisting  the  service  of  those  who  were  in  revolt  against 
the  moral  laws  of  the  Church,  in  order  to  bring  about  the 
apostasy  of  Cologne,  though  their  efforts  were  fruitless. 
Want  of  success  here  was,  however,  not  due  to  any  half- 
measures  on  Melanchthon's  part,  for  the  latter  repeatedly 
spoke  against  any  toleration  being  shown  to  the  ancient 
"  errors."  In  his  reply  to  Eberhard  Billick  he  attacked, 
for  instance,  the  "  idolatry  "  which  prevailed  in  the  Rhine- 
land,  witnessed  to  by  the  invocation  of  Saints,  the  veneration 
of  images,  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  and  the  Processions  of 
the  Sacrament.1 

By  this  attack  on  the  citadel  of  Catholicism  in  the  Rhine 
Province  he  again  reaped  a  harvest  of  trouble  and  anxiety, 
in  consequence  of  his  and  Bucer's  differences  with  Luther 
on  the  doctrine  of  the  Supper. 

In  the  text  of  the  "  Cologne  Book  of  Reform,"  composed 
by  both,  Luther  failed  to  find  expressed  his  doctrine  of  the 
Presence  of  Christ,  but  rather  the  opposite.  For  this  reason 
an  outbreak  on  his  part  was  to  be  feared,  and  Melanchthon 
trembled  with  anxiety,  since,  as  he  says  in  one  of  his  letters, 2 
Luther  had  already  begun  to  "  stir  up  strife  "  in  his 
sermons.  He  fully  expected  to  have  to  go  into  exile.  It 
was  said  that  Luther  was  preparing  a  profession  of  faith 
which  all  his  followers  would  have  to  sign.  But,  this  time 
again,  Melanchthon  was  spared,  though  Bucer  was  not  so 
fortunate  ;  in  Luther's  furious  writing  against  the  deniers 
of  the  Sacrament,  the  latter  was  pilloried,  but  not  Melanch- 
thon.3 Outwardly  Luther  and  Melanchthon  remained 
friends.  In  the  Swiss  camp  they  were  well  aware  of  the 
difficulties  of  the  scholar  who  refused  to  place  himself 
blindly  under  the  spell  of  Luther's  opinions.  Bullinger, 
Zwingli's  successor  at  Zurich,  invited  him  to  come  there  and 
promised  to  see  that  the  magistrates  provided  him  with  a 
suitable  stipend.  Calvin  declared  later,  in  1560,  that 
Melanchthon  had  several  times  told  him  sorrowfully,  that 

1  Ellinger,  "  Melanchthon,"  p.  424  f. 

2  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  582. 

3  The  writing  is  entitled  "  Kurtz  Bekentnis,"  etc.  "  Werke,"  Erl. 
ed.,  32,  p.  396  ff. 


448  LUTHER  THE  REFORMER 

he  would  much  rather  live  in  Geneva  than  in  Wittenberg.1 
Concerning  Melanchthon's  views  on  the  Eucharist,  Calvin 
said  :  "I  can  assure  you  a  hundred  times  over,  that  to 
make  out  Philip  to  be  at  variance  with  me  on  this  doctrine 
is  like  tearing  him  away  from  his  own  self."2  This  explains 
why  Melanchthon  always  sought  to  evade  the  theological 
question  as  to  how  Christ  is  present  in  the  Sacrament. 

One  of  the  last  important  works  he  carried  out  with 
Luther  was  the  so-called  "  Wittenberg  Reformation,"  a 
writing  drawn  up  at  the  Elector's  request.  The  document, 
which  was  presented  by  Luther  and  the  Wittenberg 
theologians  on  January  14,  1545,  was  intended,  in  view  of 
the  anticipated  Diet,  to  express  theologically  the  position 
of  the  Reformers  with  regard  toa  "  Christian  Settlement." 
Here  Melanchthon  found  himself  in  his  own  element.  In 
this  work  he  distinguished  himself,  particularly  by  his 
cleverly  contrived  attempts  to  make  out  the  new  doctrine 
to  be  that  of  the  old  and  real  Church  Catholic,  by  his  stern 
aversion  to  Popish  "  idolatry  "  and  by  his  repudiation  of  any- 
thing that  might  be  regarded  as  a  concession,  also  by  the 
unfeasible  proposal  he  made  out  of  mockery,  that  the 
bishops,  in  order  to  make  it  possible  for  the  Protestants  to 
join  their  congregations,  should  "  begin  by  introducing  the 
pure  evangelical  doctrine  and  Christian  distribution  of  the 
Sacraments,"  in  which  case  Protestants  would  obey  them.3 

The  Wittenbergers,  in  other  words,  offered  to  recognise 
the  episcopate  under  the  old  condition,  upon  which  they 
were  ever  harping,  though  well  aware  that  it  was  impossible 
for  the  bishops  to  accept  it.4 

They  thus  showed  plainly  how  much  store  was  to  be  set 
on  the  tolerance  of  certain  externals  promised  by  the 
wily  Melanchthon.  In  this  document  he  "  retained  certain 
outward  forms  to  which  the  people  were  accustomed, 
proposing,  however,  to  render  them  innocuous  by  imbuing 
them  with  a  new  spirit,  and  to  use  them  as  means  of  religious 
and  moral  education  in  the  interests  of  the  Evangelical 
cause.     It  was  in  the  same  sense  that  he  was  ready  to 

1  Kawerau,  "  Stellung  "  (above,  p.  319,  n.  1),  p.  30. 

2  "  Ultima  admonitio  ad  W ' estphalum."  Cp.  "RE.  fur  prot.  Theol. 
und  Kirche"3,  Art.  "Melanchthon,"  p.  526. 

3  "  Corp.  ref.,"  5,  p.  578  seq.  Cp.  "  Luthers  Brief e,"  ed.  De  Wette, 
6,  p.  370.    Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  599. 

4  Kostlin-Kawerau,  ibid. 


MELANCHTHON  449 

recognise  the  episcopate." 1  In  reality  it  was  the  merest  irony 
to  demand,  that  all  the  bishops  of  Christendom  should 
prepare  the  way  for  and  welcome  the  innovations.  Such 
was,  however,  the  spirit  and  tone  of  Melanchthon's  "  very 
mild  reform,"  as  Briick  the  Chancellor  described  it  to  the 
Elector.  Luther,  however,  in  order  as  it  were  to  furnish 
a  commentary  on  its  real  sense,  at  that  very  time  put  his 
pen  to  his  last  and  most  revolting  work  against  the  Papacy.2 

1  Ellinger,  ibid.,  p.  440. 

2  On  the  book  "  Das  Bapstum  vom  Teuffel  gestifft,"  see  vol.  v., 
xxxiii.  2. 


END    OF   VOL.    Ill 


PRINTED    BY 

WILLIAM    BRKNDON    AND    SON,     LTD. 

PLYMOUTH 


LIBRARY  OF  HISTORICAL  WORKS 


ON 


THE  CATHOLIC  MIDDLE  ACES  AND  AFTER. 


HISTORY  OP  THE  POPES  FROM  THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 

Drawn  from  the  Secret  Archives  of  the  Vatican  and  other  original  sources.      From 

the   German  of  Dr   Ludwig   Pastor,   Professor  of  History  in  the   University  of 

Innsbruck.     Edited,  as  to  Vols.  I.-VI.,  by  the  late  Frederick  Ignatius  Antrobus, 

and,  as  to  Vols.  VII.-XIL,  by  Francis  Ralph  Kerr,  of  the  London  Oratory.     In 

Fourteen  Volumes  (12  now  ready).    Demy  8vo. 

Pope  Innocent  III.  acceded  in  n 99,  and  Dr  Pastor,  in  his  Introductory  Volume  (Vol.  I. 

of  the  "History"),  following  on  the  work  designed  and  nearly  brought  to  completion  by 

Father  Mann,  gives  an  outline  of  the  lives  of  the  Popes  during  the  Avignon  period  and 

during  the  period  of  the  Great  Schism.      The  History  starts  with   Martin  V.  (1417-1431), 

and  extends  through  several  centuries.     To  English  readers,  Vols.  IX.  and  X.  are,  perhaps, 

of  more  than  ordinary  interest,  since  they  deal,  inter  alia,  with  the  negotiations  between 

Henry  VIII.  and  the  Pope  in  the  matter  of  the  Royal  Divorce.     Vols.  XI.  and  XII.  deal 

with  the  pontificate  of  Paul  III.,  and  discusses  the  Diet  of  Worms,  the  Society  of  Jesus, 

the  German  Schism,  and  the  Council  of  Trent.     Vols.  XIII.  and   XIV.,  concluding  this 

monumental  undertaking,  will  be  ready  in  the  course  of  1914. 

'•  The  work  is  of  the  first  importance,  and  must  long  remain  indispensable  for  those  who 
wish  to  obtain  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  life  of  the  centre  of  Christianity  at  the  time  of 
its  greatest  convulsion.  Dr  Pastor's  vast  knowledge  of  the  printed  literature  of  his  subject, 
in  itself,  far  surpasses  that  of  any  other  writer,  but  his  work  is  made  of  unique  value  by  his 
use  of  the  secret  archives  of  the  Vatican,  and  other  original  sources,  which  have  hitherto 
been  inaccessible." — The  Guardian. 

"  Dr  Pastor  has  two  chief  advantages.  He  has  found  an  extraordinarily  good  translator, 
and — what  is  more  important — he  has  so  much  historical  judgment  that,  Roman  Catholic 
though  he  be,  and  handling  the  story  of  his  foes,  he  endeavours  to  approach  the  characters 
he  deals  with  without  bias  and  to  sum  up  with  sense  and  insight." — The  Times. 

BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 

ACTA    INEDITA    Historiam    Pontificum    Romanorum    praesertim    saec.    xv.,   xvi.,  xvii. 

Illustrantia.    Vol.  I.  1376-1464.    Demy  8vo. 


HISTORY    OF    ROME    AND    THE    POPES    IN    THE    MIDDLE    AGES.      By 

Hartmann  Grisar,   S.J.,   Professor  at   the  University  of  Innsbruck.      Authorised 

English  Translation,  edited  by  Luigi  Cappadei.ta.     In  Three  Volumes.     Royal  8vo. 

Profusely  Illustrated  with  maps,  plans,  and  photographs  of  basilicas,  mosaics,  coins, 

and  other  memorials. 
"The  present  work  might  be  described  as  a  history  of  the  mediaeval  Popes,  with  the 
history  of  the  City  of  Rome  and  of  its  civilisation  as  a  background,  the  author's  design 
being  so  to  combine  the  two  stories  as  to  produce  a  true  picture  of  what  Rome  was  in  the 
Middle  Ages." — Author  s  Preface. 

The  three  volumes  now  issued  represent  Vol.  I.  in  the  bulky  German  original.  This 
portion  of  Father  Grisar 's  great  enterprise  is  self-contained,  and  the  history  is  brought  down 
to  the  epoch  of  St  Gregory  I. 

"A  valuable  and  interesting  book,  well  translated  .  .  .  will,  we  are  sure,  be  welcomed  by 
all  students  and  lovers  of  Rome,  whether  Catholics  or  not." — The  Tablet. 

"Scholars  of  every  school  of  thought  will  welcome  its  appearance,  and  will  admire,  even 
while  occasionally  criticising,  the  boundless  wealth  of  facts  it  contains." — The  Outlook. 

THE  LIVES  OF  THE  POPES  IN  THE  EARLY  MIDDLE  AGES.      By  the  Rev. 

Horace  K.  Mann,  Headmaster  of  St  Cuthbert's  Grammar  School,  Newcastle-on- 

Tyne.      Vols.  I.-VIII.  now  ready.      (Vol.  I.  in  Two  Parts.)      Vols.  IV  -VIII.  are 

Illustrated.     Demy  8vo. 

Father  Mann  starts  his  magnum  opus  where  the  third  volume  of  Grisar  leaves  off,  at  the 

Pontificate  of  St  Gregory  the  Great.     The  subject-matter  of  his  first  eight  volumes  are : — 

I.  The  Popes  under  the  Lombard  Rule;    II.  The  Popes  during  the  Carolingian  Empire; 

III.  The  same,  continued  ;    IV.  The  Popes  in  the  Days  of  Feudal  Anarchy;    v.  The  same, 

continued;   Vi.   The  Popes  of  the  Gregorian   Renaissance;    VII.  and  VIII.    The  same, 

continued.     Vols.  IX.  and  X.,  to  be  published  in  1913,  will  deal  with  the  Popes  from 

Innocent  II.  (1130)  to  Innocent  III.  (1198). 

1  Shows  fully  the  dispassionate  reasoning  of  an  impartial  critic,  and  the  clear,  lucid  style 
of  a  well-read  scholar." — Daily  'j  elegraph. 

"  The  pictures  are  well  drawn,  the  political  and  ecclesiastical  situations  well  described,  the 
lights  and  shadows  ably  defined,  and  the  reading  made  easy  and  pleasant." — Dublin  Review. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO 
LIBRARY 


Do    not 
re  move 
the   card 
from   this 
Pocket. 


Acme    Library   Card   Pocket 

Under  Pat.  "  Ref.  Index  File." 
Made  by  LIBRARY  BUREAU